Ⅱ. Lectures and Essays by the Winners of the Blue Planet Prize (2007-2011)

Professor Joseph L. Sax Dr. Amory B. Lovins Dr. Claude Lorius Professor José Goldemberg Professor Hirofumi Uzawa Lord (Nicholas) Stern of Brentford Dr. James Hansen Sir Bob Watson Dr. Jane Lubchenco Barefoot College CONTENTS 2007 Professor Joseph L. Sax Profi le ...... 33 Essay "An Environmental Agenda for Our Time" ...... 35 Lecture "The Unfi nished Agenda of Environmental Law" ...... 39 Major Publications ...... 48 Dr. Amory B. Lovins Profi le ...... 49 Essay "Applied Hope" ...... 51 Lecture "Profi table, Business-Led Solutions to the Climate, Oil, and Proliferation Problems"...... 55 Major Publications ...... 83 2008 Dr. Claude Lorius Profi le ...... 105 Lecture " Climate and Environment – 50 Years of Adventures and Research in Antarctica –"...... 108 Professor José Goldemberg Profi le ...... 125 Essay "Revisiting Technological 'Leapfrogging'"...... 128 Lecture "A Sustainable Energy Future" ...... 134 Major Publications ...... 146 2009 Professor Hirofumi Uzawa Profi le ...... 153 Lecture "Social Common Capital" ...... 158 Lord (Nicholas) Stern of Brentford Profi le ...... 176 Essay "Climate Change, Public Policy and a New Wave of Technological Change" ...... 180 Lecture " Creating a Global Agreement on Climate Change: Responsibilities and Opportunities"...... 186 Major Publications ...... 199 2010 Dr. James E.Hansen Profi le ...... 209 Essay " Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative of a Carbon Fee and Dividend" ...... 213 Lecture " Human-Made Climate Change: A Moral, Political and Legal Issue" ...... 219 Major Publications ...... 243 Sir Bob Watson Profi le ...... 250 Essay " Current and Projected State of the Global and Regional Environment: Implications for Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability" ...... 255 Lecture " Ozone Depletion, Climate Change and Loss of Biodiversity: Implications for Food, Water and Human Security" ...... 259 Major Publications ...... 284 2011 Dr. Jane Lubchenco Profi le ...... 293 Lecture " The Beauty, the Bounty, and the Power of Oceans: Achieving a Sustainable Future for our Blue Planet" ...... 296 Barefoot College Profi le ...... 315 Essay "Grass Root Sustainable Solutions Where the Rural Poor Come First" ...... 317 Lecture "Demystifying Professionalism: The Barefoot Approach" ...... 322 The Winners of the Blue Planet Prize

2007

Professor Joseph L. Sax (USA) Dr. Amory B. Lovins (USA)

2007 Blue Planet Prize

Professor Joseph L. Sax (USA) Dr. Amory B. Lovins (USA) Professor Emeritus, Chairman and Chief Scientist, University of California, Berkeley Rocky Mountain Institute

SYMPOSION: On this blue planet, The planet we live in Harmony of life so grandeur Plays the melody so deep in wisdom.

When have we human beings become so forgetful To listen to the wisdom of nature And negligent in caring for other lives. We a tiny member on this planet Needing care and affection, Became ignorant to join the chain of infi nity To sustain to live together.

We hope this fi lm Can play its part In reawakening people's awareness Of our Selected from the Slide Show Presented at the Opening planet, the blue planet That tells us the of the Awards Ceremony importance Of all the lives And to lend an ear To the tune of wisdom of nature. 31 Their Imperial Highnesses Prince and Princess Akishino at the Awards Ceremony His Imperial Highness Prince Akishino congratulates the laureates

Hiromichi Seya, Chairman Dr. Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, of the Foundation delivers Chairman of the Selection the opening address Committee explains the rationale for the deter- mination of the year's winners

The prizewinners receive their trophies from Chairman Seya

Mr. J. Thomas Schieffer, Ambassador of the United States of America to Japan, congratulates the laureates Professor Joseph L. Sax Dr. Amory B. Lovins

The prizewinners meet with the press prior to the awards ceremony Blue Planet Prize Commemorative Lectures 32 Profi le Professor Joseph L. Sax

Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley

Education and Academic and Professional Activities 1936 Born in Illinois 1957 A.B., Harvard University 1959 J.D. University of Chicago 1962-66 Professor of Law, University of Colorado 1966-86 Philip A. Hart Distinguished University Professor, University of Michigan 1976 Environmental Quality Award, U.S. E.P.A 1977 Elizabeth Haub Award, Free Univ. Brussels 1984 Wm. O. Douglas Legal Achievement Award, The Sierra Club 1985 Environmental Law Institute Award 1986-present James H. House & Hiram H. Hurd Professor (emeritus), School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California (Berkeley) 1994-96 Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior 2004 Distinguished Water Attorney Award (As of June, 2007)

Professor Sax was born in Illinois, U.S.A. in 1936. After graduating from Harvard University, he earned the degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Chicago in 1959. He taught law at the University of Colorado from 1962 to 1966 and then he moved to the University of Michigan, where he became the Philip A. Hart Distinguished University Professor. He joined the Boalt faculty of the University of California at Berkeley in 1986, and at present is the House & Hurd Professor of Environmental Regulation, Emeritus. In the mid-1960s, series of lawsuits were raised against pesticide spraying encouraged by Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" although all lawsuits were wholly unsuccessful. Professor Sax observed that the laws themselves rarely contained environmental protections, and was drawn to the area and further engaged himself in the fi eld of environmental law. In 1969, he learned of a lawsuit opposing the construction of an apartment building along the bank of the Potomac River in Washington, DC The basis for the suit was the public trust doctrine, and here he found the legal basis to advance environmental conservation causes. Michigan Environment Protection Act which was adopted in 1970 and known as the "Sax Act" was drafted by Professor Sax and was groundbreaking in that it authorized environmental citizen suits and ensured standing in environmental litigation by stating "any person, partnership, corporation, association, organization or other legal entity may maintain

33 an action in the circuit court for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources and the public trust therein from pollution, impairment or destruction." A primary feature of the law was its recognition that every person is legally entitled to the benefi ts of legal protection against pollution and other environmentally destructive activities, and that the courts were to be empowered to grant relief against such activities. The "Sax Act" later became the model for similar statutes in more than a dozen other states. In 1970, Professor Sax published "The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention." This landmark article argued that the U.S. courts has the authority and responsibility to prevent legislatures and administrative agencies from damaging, selling, or giving away environmental features, such as coastlines and wetlands, that were entrusted to the ownership of the people as a whole. More than any other work in the history of environmental law, this article has been cited countless times as the leading discussion of the public trust principle, and it has initiated an entire literature on the limits of governments in America to damage environmental resources held in trust for all people. Professor Sax served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Interior Department and as legal counsel to the Secretary, Bruce Babbitt between 1994 and 1996, and internationally, he has been active and contributed in helping governments, and multilateral organizations (such as the U.N. agencies) improve the role of environmental law in contending with continuing ecological degradation, pollution, and diminishing water and natural resources stocks. He authored books on environmental law issues and is the author of about 150 law review articles. He has also published many magazine articles, newspaper essays, and reports emphasizing the need for improving environmental protection. He did more than write. He led the creation of the Environmental Law Institute, and the launch of the Environmental Law Reporter. In seeking to explain the appropriate limits of private property, and the legitimate interests of the public, Professor Sax has in recent years sought to draw provocative analogies between the need to protect the natural world's treasures, and the well-accepted understanding of the need to protect cultural treasures, such as great works of art and historical and archaeological resources. He has therefore written about "cultural property" as another example of the need for a public trust concept, and to illustrate the importance of appreciating the limits of what can be claimed in the name of private property. Professor Sax has been and still is the leading environmental law scholar in the United States and the world, and he has repeatedly created new legal innovations to expand the realms of environmental and natural resources protection laws, and has directly or indirectly infl uenced the ideas of scholars in many other countries. He has also been actively involved in public affairs as they relate to environmental protection and conservation issues, and contributed to the world.

34 Essay An Environmental Agenda for Our Time Professor Joseph L. Sax

Where do we go from here? If we are to make real advances in protecting the natural heritage that time has passed down to us, one central element of our agenda must necessarily be a re- conception of the meaning and content of landownership. A transformative legal change is required, and so long as courts and lawmakers, and the scholars who infl uence them, cling to the proposition, “what is the land but the profi ts thereof ”, we will not effect that transformation. The need to re-conceive land law does not require a repudiation of the importance of using land to meet the needs and interests of human communities. So the question is what would an environmentally appropriate land system look like? I suggest the following fi ve approaches as an outline that can help move us toward a new way of thinking about land, landowners, and the public. First, we have a theoretical legal precedent very close to hand that can be very helpful: the legal status of water. Nearly 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court famously observed, “there [cannot] be said to arise any ownership of [a navigable] river. …Ownership of a private stream wholly upon the lands of an individual is conceivable; but that the running water in a great navigable stream is capable of private ownership is inconceivable.” 1 The reason, of course, is that great rivers and the sea have always been understood to provide vital services that the community as a whole needed, and to which, therefore, the community as a whole must have an entitlement. The notion of the sea as common property traces at least back to Roman law, 2 and the idea that water as a vital resource cannot be privately owned but remains the property of the people, subject only to use-rights or usufructs. Water, since it is a vital resource, as the Supreme Court of Colorado observed as long ago as 1882, is governed by the law of “imperative necessity.” 3 As we now see land—in the context of climate change, as vital for biodiversity protection, as a continuum with other land and with its adjacent waters, rather than a collection of independent fenced squares—it looks much more like the waters that have earned universal recognition as incorporating an elemental public entitlement to which private uses must necessarily accommodate. Second is the question what is need to assure that we do not continue to diminish biodiversity, to generate destructive rising sea levels, or to destroy a sustainable economy. But for a long time we believed—wrongly as it turned out—in the inexhaustibility of the globe’s resources, and in a promise of technology to replace what was destroyed, a promise that it could not adequately fulfi ll. We also knew less once than we do now about resources such as wetlands (which we called swamps), and about the role of land as habitat, a word that was not even a part of our vocabulary until recent decades. What is new is our understanding that the existing system of laws about land and about ownership is not producing and protecting

35 adequately what we need and are entitled to expect of it. Third, the changes that are needed can and should be made in ways that facilitate the continued production of goods and services that are required to serve a prosperous human community. A fi rst principle would be that the public holds an entitlement to the natural services provided by land, and that a landowner has no proprietary right to diminish or destroy those services, but that proprietary uses for human benefi t are appropriate and lawful to the extent that they are compatible with minimization of loss of biodiversity, and with promotion of sustainable use of natural resources. This principle must underlie our system of land laws. Fourth, we now know a good deal about how to shape land use to produce the goods and services we need, and simultaneously to protect our natural patrimony. There are many well- known practices that can and should be implemented in support of a land law suitable to an effective environmental agenda, and there is a substantial literature on the subject. 4 Among the most familiar practices are avoidance of development in wetlands, along shorelines, and in fl ood plains; identifi cation and protection of wildlife corridors; identifi cation of valuable undeveloped areas, and institution of land use practices that maintain such places to the maximum extent practicable, including clustering of development away from sensitive areas; forestry and agricultural management practices calculated to maximize sustainable use; restoration of mined areas to re-initiate natural services from those areas; and protection and restoration of instream fl ows and riparian areas. We know how to restore upstream eroded meadowlands to hold more spring waters, as an alternative to building new dams and reservoirs.5 There are also well-established techniques for restoration of severely-altered ecosystems that can restore endemic species and, at least to a signifi cant extent, natural processes—even in the most ecologically troubled places. 6 In addition to restrictive practices, we should not hesitate to offer positive incentives to landowners to utilize environmentally appropriate methods—such as tax benefi ts and subsidies to encourage new practices that maintain or restore degraded terrain. Such incentives can be particularly valuable during transitional periods, and help to avoid unfairness or excessive burdens on owners who fi nd themselves caught in transitional regulatory situations, using such devices as a more fl exible and positive approach than using property doctrines to shape land use. 7 A mixture of public incentives along with regulation that incentivizes private actors to be innovative and to behave adaptively is the most productive approach. Having said this, I want to emphasize the continued need for public funding to support and sustain restoration of already-degraded areas, the usefulness of private philanthropic purchases of critical tracts, and the central importance of public lands that embrace pristine or near-pristine areas, which, though not suffi cient, have a vital role to play. Both extreme positions that only purchase of private rights, or only regulatory action without any payments or subsidies to landowners and water users are mistaken. We need both approaches. Implementation of these approaches would go far toward encouraging disinvestment and non-investment by high-risk investors in sensitive areas, and instead encourage investment in lands and waters that can be utilized non-destructively. Fifth, and fi nally, changing the rules is essential, but that change can only be fully effective as landowners move on to see themselves as custodians for the community, and for

36 the future, as well as for their own benefi t. This may seem a form of wishful thinking, but there is a parallel worth pondering, that of art collectors holding famous works who, though using the works for their own benefi t and pleasure, also see themselves as participants in the safeguarding of a common heritage and routinely loan their property to public institutions, and make them available to students and scholars, so that they serve as private property imbued with a public interest.8 Moreover, there is no way to avoid a new way of thinking if we really intend to make biodiversity protection a serious goal of land use. If we look at land as habitat, we must then ask, who owns biodiversity? It’s not a question our legal system is structured to ask. I suppose the answer is everybody and nobody. One way of thinking about it is as an unprotected common superimposed on privately owned land. We can all agree it’s a good thing and it deserves as much protection as we can manage to provide it. We would then have to agree that its protection depends on the maintenance of adequate, viable habitat. And that such places consists very largely of privately owned land. So we fi nd ourselves in unfamiliar territory. There is something very important to us all collectively. But we don’t own it. It inheres in, and depends on, something called habitat (which is also un-owned as such). Habitat inheres in land, which is owned, and which we have always believed owners could generally use as they wished, which largely involved destroying its value for that service. So it seems that the public has a legitimate stake in the way in which owners use land, even though the owner isn’t doing anything that has traditionally been thought of as outside his private domain and therefore as unpermitted. These are thoughts honorable landowners will sometime have to ponder. I close with two brief statements that I made in 2005 at the IUCN Academy meeting in Sydney in 2005: First, “It is a chastening fact that the phrase ‘rights of the public’ is as rare as an endangered species in American environmental jurisprudence, as rare as the phrase ‘rights of the private property owner’ is commonplace.” And second, “That no one has a property right to destroy the benefi ts of a natural system” may seem obvious, yet its opposite has been the unarticulated watchword of the developmental economy’s property system for some 300 years. It’s time for a change.

References 1. United States v. chandler-Dunbar co. 229 U.S. 53,62,69 (1913); affi rmed in United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, ___ (1945). 2. [cite Inst. Of Justinian]. 3. Coffi n v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443, ___ (1882). 4. E.g., Richard L. Knight & Courtney White, Conservation for a New Generation: Redefi ning Natural Resource Management (2009); Joshua H. Goldstein et al., Business Strategies for Conservation on Private Lands: Koa Forestry as a Case Study, 103 Proced. U.S. Nat’l. Acad. Sci. 10, 140 (2006); Stacy M. James, Bridging the Gap between Landowners and Conservationists, 16 CONSERV. BIOL. 269 (2002); Mari N. Jensen, Can Cows and Conservation Mix? 51 BIOSCIENCE 85 (2001). 5. Dana M. Nicholds, “Meadow Restoration May Be Inexpensive Method for Water Storage”, Stockton, CA Record, Mar. 14, 2011. This is a project of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a quasi-private

37 organization created by Congress. 6. In the U.S., a good example is California’s Bay-Delta ecosystem. See, e.g., Ellen Hanak, et al, Managing California’s Water: From Confl ict to Resolution (Public Policy Institute of California, 2011), ch. 5, “Reconciling Ecosystems: Reversing Declines in Native Species”. See generally, Michael Rosenzweig, Win-Win Ecology, “How The Earth’s Species Can Survive in the Midst of Human Enterprise” (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003). 7. Joseph L. Sax,“Land Use Regulation: Time to Think About Fairness”, 50 Nat.Res.J. 455 (No. 2, Spring, 2010). 8. I have tried to draw this parallel in a book entitled Playing Darts With A Rembrandt (University of Michigan Press, 1999).

38 Lecture The Unfi nished Agenda of Environmental Law

Professor Joseph L. Sax

The fi eld of environmental law is young. Not even four decades have passed since the basic laws for protection of air and water, and for environmental assessment, began to be enacted in the industrialized nations. Obviously much has been accomplished in that relatively short time. Today I would like to talk about what remains to be done in terms of the law's role in safeguarding our environmental heritage. Before turning to that matter, however, and because many of you are not specialists in this fi eld, I would like to make a few preliminary observa- tions about the role of the legal system more generally. The primary tasks of the law are basically three-fold:

(1) to establish rules to govern daily social intercourse in commercial areas such as contract, and to protect property and bodily security against unwanted intrusions; (2) to replace anarchy and self-help with the rule of law; and (3) to articulate and safeguard basic human rights in order to protect the individual against over-reaching by the state. In this latter category we fi nd essential individual rights like free speech, freedom of religion, and basic protections for those accused of wrongdoing. More recently, there has been growing recognition of what are sometimes called positive human rights, such as the right to an education, to decent housing, to a living wage and healthful working conditions, and to basic medical care. Where in this pantheon does one fi nd the role of environmental law? In its formative stages, it developed primarily to bring certain traditional protections such as nuisance and trespass law to bear on hazards generated by modern industrial society. For example, though law had always protected the physical integrity of the individual against unwanted invasions, contamination of rivers and the ambient air presented new harms in new forms. Pollution was often caused by many different dischargers, and its damages frequently did not appear until many years later. Traditional legal notions, such as causation and proof of harm, all had to be revised to take account of the complex nature of contemporary environmental contamination. Among these revisions, one of the most important was the recognition that a preventive strategy was necessary, since the law usually provided only money damages after harm had been done. This meant a need to set emission standards, to deal with scientifi c uncertainty about risk, and to engage with the perplexing issues raised by what is now called the "precautionary principle." The adaptations made to traditional legal concepts such as nuisance, to take account of these

39 new elements, were among the fi rst important achievements of environmental law. But environmental law has also had to pioneer in another much less conventional area. The most familiar example is biodiversity protection. This problem does not arise in the form of an invasion of any individual's established legal right, and it does not involve any conduct traditionally viewed as wrongful. For example, farmers cultivating their fi elds to produce agricultural products may be destroying valuable habitat, and contributing to the decline in species diversity. Moreover, unlike health-endangering pollution, many people (even today) do not see diminishing biodiversity as a serious problem for the planet, and sometimes especially where obscure species with strange-sounding names are involved-do not perceive it as a problem at all. When conduct involves neither familiar rights or wrongs, and presents no imminently obvious peril, controlling it presents a distinctive challenge for the legal system: How does one bring such a problem within the ambit of rights that people can understand, and that the system can accommodate. As we began to grapple with issues like loss of biodiversity, we sought out a precedent based on something that has virtually disappeared from the modern world: the law of the commons1, where everyone in a community had a stake, for example, in the maintenance of a forest's productivity for the collection of fi rewood, or for hunting, but no one bore individual responsibility for protecting the forests' continued capacity to be productive. In such settings, both the rights and the benefi ts were collective; they belonged to people not as individuals but as members of a community. Of course, commons were a feature of traditional societies, where people thought more of themselves as members of a community than as autonomous individuals. Moreover, in such relatively stable societies people knew what was required of them; they did what had been done traditionally, what their forbears did going back countless generations. The maintenance or restoration of habitat is obviously a commons problem, but with some unique features in the contemporary world. For one thing, the land that comprises habitat is no longer held in common; it has been divided up into separately owned tracts. And the notion of common responsibility for maintaining productivity (traditional uses and limitations known to all, and incumbent on all) has virtually disappeared from our consciousness. In its place has arisen individually-owned property and the entitlements that go with it. And, of course, modern property law was devised not to assure the maintenance of biodiversity, but to promote productivity in the sense of maximizing the economic benefi t that could be achieved by an individual proprietor. The case of species loss is illustrative. Species require habitat. But habitat fi ts no conventional legal concept. Landownership bears no relation to the essential habitat of any species. Wildlife species are usually unowned and un-possessed, and endemic plant species are often competitors with more immediately profi table crops. Most species have no economic value to those who own the lands that are their habitat, though they may be of extraordinary value for research that ultimately generates important scientifi c and technological advances. Moreover, indigenous species are often seen as obstacles to conventional land uses: wolves or bears as predators on domestic livestock; wetlands denizens as a problem for land fi lling and

40 development; prairie or forest as an impediment to modern agriculture. This history has generated a particularly diffi cult jurisprudential challenge for modern environmental law. It has been obvious for some time that we were losing biological diversity at a rapid and increasing rate, and on a number of fronts. As rivers were dammed up for hydro power and for irrigation and municipal water supply, spawning grounds and habitat for indigenous species of fi sh were extirpated. The demand for wood products saw the decimation of forests, fi rst in the temperate zones, and then in tropical areas. Mineral exploitation had similar impacts, and population growth and urban development, like agriculture before it, has converted vast areas of habitat, both uplands and wetlands, and generated a steady decline in biological diversity. All this, of course, is very well known. What is perhaps less well understood is how poorly prepared our legal system was to address these issues: we faced a commons problem in a non-commons world. In an article some years ago2, I noted that our laws relating to natural resources such as land and water have evolved over the past several centuries almost exclusively to promote what I called the transformative economy. That economy, I said, "builds on the image of property as a discrete entity that can be made one's own by working it and transforming it into a human artifact. A piece of iron becomes an anvil, a tree becomes lumber, and a forest becomes a farm. The law treats undeveloped land as essentially inert. The land is there, it may have things on it, or in it, but it is in a passive state, waiting to be put to use. Insofar as it is 'doing' something for example harboring wild animals or indigenous plants-the conventional law considers such functions expendable. Indeed, getting rid of the natural, or at least domesticating it, was a primary task of modern society. For most of the modern era, land and water have been employed essentially to end the existence of natural systems. Land has been fenced to exclude or extirpate wildlife so it could support domesticated grazing animals, agriculture, mining, and human settlements. By contrast, any notion of the importance of protecting biodiversity builds on what may be thought of as the economy of nature, as contrasted with the transformational or developmental economy. In the economy of nature, land is not a passive entity waiting to be transformed by an owner. Nor is the world composed of distinct tracts of land. Rather the ecological perspective views land as a system defi ned by function, not by man-made boundaries. Land is already at work performing important functions in its unaltered state. Forests regulate global climate, marshes sustain marine fi sheries, and prairie grass holds the soil in place. In the economy of nature, wetlands would be governed by laws based on their ecological role, not on lines drawn on a map. And their protection would be the responsibility of all those whose activities wherever carried on adversely affected them. If today we are seriously to protect what remains of our biological heritage, to restore degraded rivers and landscapes, and to redeploy forests to play a positive role in controlling human-induced climate change, we need a legal system that is as well-attuned to achieving those goals as the conventional legal system we have inherited was attuned through transformation of nature to achieving the goals of the industrial revolution. This history helps explain why the law has had so diffi cult a time in dealing with the most profound of modern environmental problems, such as biodiversity protection and climate change. When it works best, law creates incentives that encourage people to behave in ways

41 that promote society's goals. Our legal system structured on separately owned tracts of land was designed, and works effi ciently, to achieve the goals of the transformative society: to produce houses and cars and wheat and steel, etc. It is quite ill-suited to meet the goals of an economy of nature, such as biodiversity maintenance and restoration. We have collective needs, but no collective rights. Moreover, as I shall illustrate shortly, the mentality of many of us, including lawmakers and judges, continues to perceive of the natural world solely through the lens of the transformative economy. It is, of course, possible that the interest in protecting the services provided by natural systems could be protected by sovereign states outside the category of ordinary legal rights, and we have done that to some extent by setting aside parks, wildlife refuges, marine reserves, and wilderness areas. These were the primary techniques of the 19th Century conservation movement, and they continue to be necessary elements of any strategy for biodiversity protection, but they are demonstrably not suffi cient. The vast majority of the world's land, including much of its most important and sensitive habitat, is in private ownership or control, and is vulnerable to private economic exploitation by owners whose conception of property rights and of ownership responsibility contains little or no notion of any common rights or of responsibility to the commons. In light of traditional concepts of landownership (and usufructuary rights in water as well), that is hardly surprising. It is a sobering thought that while virtually every other interest that we consider vital has been made the subject of enforceable legal rights, our heritage of biodiversity stands largely outside the framework of established jurisprudential theory, and thus, except to the extent governments fi nd it in their interest to act protectively, exposed to the ravages of human activity. We would not think of leaving individuals to the discretion or current policies of the government to safeguard their private property, or their contractual rights, or their inheritances. We view all these things as essentials and we have enshrined them as legal entitlements. They can be invoked even if government offi cials at a given time decided to take no initiative on their behalf. It is not that we do not, and should not, rely on public offi cials. It is simply that we should not rely solely on them; and where fundamental rights are in question, we never do rely solely on them. We want and need the state to be vigilant on our behalf, but we treasure our rights, and we know the value of being able to invoke the machinery of the law to protect those rights. To be sure, the notion of rights held in common among us all that are real and serious enough to be as well protected as our individual rights, is not the way most of us are accustomed to thinking about what is "ours." If someone asked you to list your assets, in addition to your house and your bank account and your jewelry, you would not likely list the polar bear or the eagle, to say nothing of freshwater mollusks or primaeval forests, yet our biological patrimony is among the most precious of our assets. In the United States, we do think of places like our national parks as common possessions that belong to us and that we are entitled to have protected, but such publicly owned places embrace only a tiny fraction of the creatures, plants and habitats that constitute the stock of our remaining biodiversity. The task of protecting adequately our remaining biological patrimony demands a robust development of the idea of common heritage, of things that belong to us as members of the

42 world community, and that are entitled to protection at our behest in whatever particular ownership patterns they are held. As some of you know, I have written quite a bit in recent years about what is called "cultural property," such as great works of art, important antiquities, and objects of historical and scientifi c importance3. This has puzzled many people, who wonder what all this has to do with environmental law. The answer is that I became interested in studying cultural property because it has some of the same characteristics and presents some of the same problems of preservation and protection as does our biological inheritance. We tend to think of things like the Parthenon Marbles or Old Master Paintings or the temple at Angkor Wat as part of our common cultural heritage, and to recognize that they need to be cared for and protected, regardless of their location or their formal ownership status. Many great works of art are in private collections, yet we expect them to be cared for, and ultimately to be made accessible to the public. The great English Monument of Stonehenge was once part of a private landed estate, but that did not make it any less worthy of preservation to humankind, both to present and future generations. Nor does national sovereignty or asserted national ownership, as in the tragic case of the Bamiyan Bhuddas of Afghanistan recently mutilated by the Taliban-bestow rights of neglect or destruction, a point that has been made against political iconoclasm at least since the destructive frenzies experienced at the time of the French Revolution4. The ideas, and the protective techniques, that have been established in the fi eld of cultural property provide some useful precedents and analogies as we work to enlarge public understanding and to assure the safeguarding of our biological birthright. The distinctive character of biodiversity, as I have noted in these remarks, presents a novel challenge to our legal system, not simply in the technical task of formulating laws, but even in understanding of the nature of the problem. A few moments ago I noted that the presuppositions of the transformative society were so dominant in the thinking of many that they made it diffi cult even to perceive the real nature of biodiversity issues. Several recent cases in the U.S. Supreme Court are depressingly illustrative of the problem.5 The case involved implementation of the Endangered Species Act 6, and the question was whether the environmentally concerned citizens who had initiated the case had a suffi cient stake in the matter to be allowed to come to court. (The general principle is that I can only sue to protect some interest of my own, as where my contract is breached, or my property is trespassed on; and the question in this case was who had a suffi cient interest in protecting an endangered species from illegal activities that were jeopardizing its continued existence, to sue to stop that activity). In this case, the justices characterized the sole legitimate interest of the public in the safeguarding of endangered species as "use," in the sense that people use the animals when they come as tourists to see and photograph them, or use them for scientifi c study. The Court refused to allow the environmental plaintiffs to seek enforcement of the endangered species law because they had not proven that they personally were going to re-visit the site where the animals lived in order to see them, and thus their personal "use" of the species was not being affected. This appalling misconception of what biodiversity is about, and what the stake of each of us is in that enterprise, is unfortunately demonstrative of how far we have yet to go. Nor is the case I just cited as exceptional as one might wish. In another more recent

43 case7, a number of the Justices showed themselves unable or unwilling to see the scope of our water protection law in terms of ecological connections, and voted to deny protection under the law to wetlands unless they were physically adjacent to a river, apparently on some notion that wetlands are land, and not water, and therefore don't come within the ambit of a law designed to protect "the chemical, physical and biological integrity of [the] Nation's waters8." The opinion says it "rejected the notion that ...ecological considerations....provide[d] an independent basis for including entities like wetlands or ephemeral streams within the phrase "the waters of the United States." Whether decisions such as these are read as purposeful anti- environmental sentiment, or as a more innocent incapacity to see how modern environmental problems can be fi tted into the pre-existing legal system, the conclusion is inescapable that the notion of a common heritage that vitally needs legal protection is still woefully under- developed. Obviously, we cannot and should not simply replace the structure of the existing transformative economy, and its legal system, with a structure built solely on the restoration of natural systems. No sensible person wants to return to a state of nature. We need the positive benefi ts of the industrial and post-industrial economy, but our inherited legal structure cannot stand unaltered if we want to protect what we have, and to restore what we can, of our biological patrimony. There are many workable adaptive mechanisms that can produce a desirable level of protection and restoration. But we need a legal system that permits and promotes such adaptations. One aspect of such a system requires an understanding of property rights as being adaptive to changing public needs and to new technological and scientifi c knowledge. This is well accepted at some levels. Everyone understands that if new knowledge demonstrates something to be hazardous to health, though it was previously a valuable property, it can no longer be used as it was previously. Industrial waste water, once discharged without control or limit, is a familiar example. That principle needs to be more widely appreciated. For example, as we have discovered the adverse impacts on fi sh spawning grounds of traditional water diversions for agriculture, industry and urban use, it must be recognized that there is no property right to destroy a fi shery or other valuable aquatic habitat, even though that means a reduction in traditional economic uses. This is simply one example of the proposition that a river is a common, and must be used to secure common rights in its productivity as an aquatic system, and isn't simply a source of private proprietary diversionary rights. The same sort of re-conception is possible in the context of forest management, or land development for residential and commercial use, if previously-recognized developmental rights are moderated to promote maintenance and restoration of habitat, and the duty to do so is acknowledged as a legally cognizable public entitlement. While any such re-confi guration of rights will necessarily require changes in the way business is done, and will sometimes be costly, we should not require such changes to be compensated. The reason is that we need a system that encourages human adaptation and ingenuity. The familiar precept that necessity is the mother of invention is a necessary component of a well-functioning legal system. For example when we articulated air emission

44 standards as legal requirements, it stimulated the development of new technologies and new industrial practices. Often, it is possible to implement such transitions without serious adverse consequences to those who must undergo change. For example, in the arid western United States, where agricultural irrigation (which uses the great bulk of all the available water, averaging as much as 80%) must limit its diversions in order to restore instream ecosystem values, newly developed effi ciency gains in the use of water, or shifting to less water-intensive crops, can signifi cantly offset losses attributable to reduced diversions. In either event, whether costly or not, property exists in a social context, and like all rights, its limits are described by the social exigencies of its time. For example, at one time married women could not own property; what they owned went to their husbands upon marriage, refl ecting a societal view about women's status in society. When that value changed, we enacted what are called Married Women's Property Acts, which revised the property rights of husbands to their disadvantage. This same principle must govern contemporary societal values about the responsibilities of owners to protect our environmental heritage. The need to revise our conception of rights in the earth and its waters in order to re- invigorate the conception of the world as a commons, and of rights held in common, has a long way to go before it can fl ower fully. So far, we have made just a modest amount of progress. The public trust doctrine, drawn from the ancient Roman law recognizing the sea and the seashore as the common inheritance of humankind, open to all for navigation and fi shery, has been one of the most useful adaptations of traditional legal doctrines for bringing the notion of public rights and responsibilities into the modern era9. So far its application has been limited to waters, but the underlying principle will, I am confi dent, fi nd even broader application. Two important contemporary cases in the United States are illustrative of the way the law needs to evolve if we are to get an adequate grip on protecting the natural values that constitute our biological inheritance. In the fi rst such case10, the City of Los Angeles was diverting water for municipal use from streams tributary to a large lake known as Mono Lake, which is located directly east of Yosemite National Park in California. The result of these diversions was steadily to diminish the elevation of the lake, severely impacting its capacity to sustain its indigenous marine organisms, and its use as bird habitat. In response to concerns expressed that the enforcement of common rights under the public trust doctrine would either deprive a major city of its needed water supply, or simply drive it to another location where it might do even more harm, the government authorized the appropriation of funds to install a variety of water-conservation programs in the city, so as effectively to replace the lost supply by reducing demand. In the ensuring years, the elevation of Mono Lake has risen, and its biological values have been largely restored with no discernible adverse impact on Los Angeles. The case stands for the proposition that the natural values in the Mono Lake ecosystem are an entitlement of the public, and that any uses of the resources of that system, even though for a perfectly legitimate use, must be made in a way that respects the protection and sustained productivity of that system. Notably, nothing in the case suggests that absolute preservation is required, or that the system cannot be impacted by human use. The legal constraint is only that use must be made in a way that does not destroy the functioning ecosystem of the lake.

45 A more recent Hawaii case11 is also illustrative of how common rights in the form of the public trust can be effectively implemented. Early in the 20th Century, in order to irrigate plantations on the dry (southern) side of the island of Oahu, tunnels were drilled through the mountains, and water diverted from streams on the northern (wet) side of the island. The result was harm to ecosystem values in those streams and to the traditional agriculture of Native Hawaiian people who lived near those streams. In recent years, as the plantations were retired, diversions through the tunnels were sharply reduced, and water again fl owed in the streams. In a notable example of the resilience of natural systems (and, incidentally, of the positive potential of restoration efforts), there was a resurgence of life in the streams and revived opportunities for traditional agriculture. While those who had owned the use-rights in the water for plantation irrigation wanted to retain those rights, presumably for planned future residential development, an environmental case was initiated to restore ecosystem and Native values under the rubric of the public trust in water as a common right, rather than a merely private, perpetual property right. The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii issued a most interesting and important decision recognizing public trust rights in Hawaii, and ordering the restoring of substantial fl ows to implement those rights. The case is of special interest because it not only elucidates the familiar public trust doctrine with its roots in Roman Law, but it sets out principles of traditional Hawaiian law that lead to similar mandates for restoration. In addition, the case is instructive because it shows that certain moments of opportunity arise (in this case the closing of the sugar plantations on Oahu) where environmental restoration can be effectuated without adverse impacts on existing economic activity. These are just two specifi c illustrative instances of adaptive behavior mandated by the legal system, providing examples of the practicality of bringing about needed change in favor of biodiversity protection and restoration. Broadly stated, what we need is a more robust notion of common rights and responsibilities, legally recognized and enforceable, that we all hold as stewards of the earth, no less important than the effort we expend to protect our stock of common scientifi c knowledge, or our literary and artistic heritage. We need a more fully developed conception of land as habitat (and not solely as an object to be transformed and exploited for privatized benefi t). Such changes call for an increased focus on land in terms of function, rather than in terms of boundaries. Such an approach is the antithesis of the perception I described earlier, in which it was thought important to decide whether a wetland is 'land' or is 'water'. And it is antithetical to the way in which some laws still formally treat surface water and ground water as separate legal entities, even when they are demonstrably elements of a single geo-hydrological system. In addition, we need increasingly to come to terms with the need for proactive protective laws, as contrasted with the traditional legal practice of focusing on after-the-fact remedies. We have made some considerable progress in this respect in our modern air pollution and water pollution laws. But the urgent issues of climate change that are at the forefront of today's environmental agenda indicate how remiss we have often been in getting in front of problems before they reach crisis proportions. This is in part due to a traditional mind-set about the standards of proof needed to set the protective machinery of the law in motion, and our traditional use of the law largely to provide after-the-fact remedies. Whether it goes by the

46 name of a precautionary principle, or of simple prudence in adapting away from the excesses of the transformative economy, these are the some of the vital tasks that remain before us. They constitute the unfi nished agenda of environmental law. I would like to end with a brief quotation from the American scientist Edward O. Wilson, who in my opinion clearly and elegantly sets out the nature of the task before us. He said12: “...it is reckless to suppose that biodiversity can be diminished indefi nitely without threatening humanity itself.....The ethical imperative should therefore be, fi rst of all, prudence..... We should not knowingly allow any species or race to go extinct. And let us go beyond mere salvage to begin the restoration of natural environments, in order to enlarge wild populations and stanch the hemorrhaging of biological wealth. There can be no purpose more enspiriting than to begin the age of restoration, reweaving the wondrous diversity of life that still surrounds us.”

References 1. Joseph L. Sax, Liberating the Public Trust Doctrine From Its Historical Shackles, 14 Univ. Calif. (Davis) Law Review 185 (No. 2, Winter, 1980). 2. Joseph L. Sax, Property Rights and the Economy of Nature [etc], 45 Stanford Law Review 1433 (1993). 3. Joseph L. Sax, Playing Darts With A Rembrandt: Public and Private Rights in Cultural Treasures (1999). 4. Joseph L. Sax, Heritage Preservation as a Public Duty: The Abbé Grégoire and the Origins of an Idea, 88 Mich. L. Rev. 1142. 5. E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). 6. 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1531-1544. 7. Rapanos v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 2208 (2006). 8. 33 U.S.C.A. § 1251 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act: Clean Water Act). 9. Joseph L. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Michigan Law Review 471 (January, 1970). 10. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (1983). 11. In re Water Use Permit Applications for the Wai_hole Ditch, 94 Haw. 97 (2000). 12. The Diversity of Life (1992), at 347,351.

47 Major Publications Professor Joseph L. Sax

Book Defending the Environment (Chinese Language Edition, China University of Political Science and Law Press (2011).

Articles The Unfi nished Agenda of Environmental Law, 2007 Blue Planet Prize Commemorative Lecture, The Asahi Glass Foundation, Tokyo (October 18, 2007) (printed pamphlet). Reprinted in 14 West-Northwest: Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 1 (No. 1, Winter 2008). Refl ections on Western Water Law, 34 Ecology L.Q. 299 (2007). Environmental Law Forty Years Later: Looking Back and Looking Ahead, IUCN 3rd Colloquium Lectures, Sydney, in Michael I. Jeffery, Jeremy Firestone, Karen Bubna-Litich, eds., Biodiversity Conservation, Law + Livelihoods: Bridging the North-South Divide (Cambridge Univ. Press., 2008), ISBN 978-0-521-88503-4, 664 pp. Article on Env. Law in vol. 1, Encyclopedia of Environmental. Ethics and Philosophy (J. Baird Callicott & Robert Frodeman, eds. In chief,, Macmillan R Reference USA, Gale Cengage Learning, 2009), at pp. 348-354). Our Precious Water Resources: Learning from the Past, Securing the Future, in Trevor Daya-Winterbottom, ed., Resource Management Theory & Practice (Resource Management Law Ass’n of New Zealand, Inc., 2009), at 30-53. The Property Rights Sweepstakes: Has Anyone Held the Winning Ticket?, 34 Vermont L. Rev. 157 (2009). Land Use Regulation: Time to Think About Fairness, 50 Nat.Res.J. 455 (No. 2, Spring, 2010). The Accretion/Avulsion Puzzle: Its Past Revealed, Its Future Proposed, 23 Tulane Env.L.J. 305 (Summer 2010). Excerpt reprinted in Josh Eagle & Margaret R. Caldwell, Coastal Law (Aspen Publishers, 2011). Some Unorthosdox Thoughts About Rising Sea Levels, Beach Erosion and Property Rights, 11 Vt.J. Env. L. 641 (Spring 2010). Ownership, Property and Sustainability, The Wallace Stegner Lecture, University of Utah (2010), in 31 Utah Env. L. Rev. 1 (2011). Also published in pamphlet form by the Univeristy of Utah Press (2011). Environmental Disruption and Landowner Obligations: Time for Some New Thinking, 40 Research on Environmental Disruption no. 1 (Summer 2010) (Japan, ISSN 0918-7537), at 5. Public Benefi t Obligations and Legacy Stewardship Activities of Artist-Endowed Foundations: Are They In Confl ict?, in vol 2, The Artist as Philanthropist (The Aspen Institute Program on Philanthropy & Social Innovation (Nov. 2010) at 369-380. [www.aspeninstitute.org/psi/a-ef-report]. Environmental Disruption and Landowner Obligations: Time for Some New Thinking, 40 Research on Environmental Disruption 2, no. 1 (Summer 2010) [in Japanese].

48 Profi le Dr. Amory B. Lovins

Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute Education and Academic and Professional Activities 1947 Born in Washington DC 1964-1967 Harvard University 1967-1969 Magdalen College, Oxford, England 1968-present Consulted for governments and the industries in the U.S. and worldwide 1969-1971 Junior Research Fellow, Merton College, Oxford, England Received a master of arts (M.A.) degree1971 1982 Co-founded Rocky Mountain Institute; currently Chairman & Chief Scientist 1982 Mitchell Prize 1983 Right Livelihood Award 1989 Delphi Prize 1993 Nissan Prize, ISATA; MacArthur Fellow 1997 Heinz Award for the Environment 1998 Lindbergh Award 1999 World Technology Award 1999 Established Hypercar, Inc. (Chairman 1999-2007), now Fiberforge, Inc. 2000 Time Heroes for the Planet Award 2001 Shingo Prize 2005 Jean Meyer Award 2006 Benjamin Franklin Medal and Life Fellow, Royal Society of Arts (London) 2007 Honorary Member, American Institute of Architects (As of June, 2007)

Dr. Lovins was born in Washington, DC in 1947. From his high-school days, he showed talent in physics, music, classics and mathematics. He entered Harvard College, and transferred to Magdalen College, Oxford, England. He became a Junior Research Fellow of Merton College, Oxford in 1969, receiving a master of arts (M.A.) degree in 1971. During his stay in the U.K., Dr. Lovins was fascinated by Snowdonia National Park in North Wales, and wrote a book about these endangered Welsh wildlands. Dr. Lovins then served for ten years as British Representative for Friends of the Earth. While taking interest in nature and environment, he became involved increasingly in energy strategy, initially through his research on climate. He wrote his fi rst books on energy "World Energy Strategies" in 1974. The energy crisis in 1973 drew more people to Dr. Lovins's ideas, and in 1976, he published a groundbreaking essay "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?" It redefi ned the energy problem from "how to supply more energy" to how to provide just the amount, type,

49 and scale of energy that would do each task in the cheapest way, and there he put forward the concept of the "soft energy path." The concept points out to a new system with effi cient use of energy and the use of "soft energy technologies" based on such resources as solar, wind force, bio-fuel and geothermal heat. This is opposite to the "hard energy path" which points out to an existing huge centralized power generation system utilizing fossil fuel and nuclear power. He envisaged this approach as a "master key" to unlock the intertwined puzzles of energy, environment, resources, development, and security. Dr. Lovins suggested that soft energy paths are possible, profi table, environmentally benign, and supportive of fair global development without the hard path's prohibitive costs and risks. The soft-path concept initially attracted huge criticism from traditional energy suppliers. But nowadays, effi cient use and soft energy technologies are being adopted worldwide through competition in the marketplace, and it can be said that his pioneering views have been proven. Dr. Lovins continued to write books and consulted widely to industry, and was active in energy affairs in some 15 countries as a policy advisor. He and his fi rst wife L. Hunter Sheldon co-founded Rocky Mountain Institute in 1982 to foster the effi cient and restorative use of resources. They built their home and the original headquarters of Rocky Mountain Institute, still one of the world's most effi cient buildings. The essence of its construction is that in order to thoroughly utilize the solar heat, it uses high performance insulation and glass, and takes notice on the heat intake and prevention of its dissipation, and through integrative design optimizing the whole building as a system for multiple benefi ts rather than isolated components for single benefi ts. Radical energy effi ciency has always been a key goal at Rocky Mountain Institute, examining in great detail nearly every use and emphasizing the most important ones. In 1991, Dr. Lovins invented the Hypercar , integrating two known and demonstrated techniques in a radically simplifi ed, software-rich vehicle design. Compared to then-existing cars, Hypercar- class vehicles could triple fuel economy with equal or better performance, safety, and affordability. In 1997, the Lovinses and Prof. E.U. von Weizsaecker wrote "Factor Four: Doubling Wealth Halving Resource Use," and in 1999, with Paul Hawken, the Lovinses published the book "Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution." In 2004, Dr. Lovins published "Winning the Oil Endgame" which provided a detailed roadmap for eliminating U.S. oil use by the 2040s. Dr. Lovins with his remarkable foresight has consistently proposed and implemented pioneering concepts since the 1970s in the energy fi eld and many others. Ineffi cient energy use has created many economic and security issues and most of the world's environmental problems, so he has designed compelling technological, business, and policy innovations to solve them. At the same time, he has shown how to achieve a society where high energy effi ciency and sustainable energy supplies can lead to a safer, environmentally healthier, climate-stabilized, and more rewarding future.

50 Essay Applied Hope Dr. Amory B. Lovins

The early bioneer Bill McLarney was stirring a vat of algae in his Costa Rica research center when a brassy North American lady strode in. What, she demanded, was he doing stirring a vat of green goo when what the world really needs is love? “There’s theoretical love,” Bill replied, “and then there’s applied love” and kept on stirring. Many of us here stir and strive in the spirit of applied hope. We work to make the world better, not from some airy theoretical hope, but in the pragmatic and grounded conviction that starting with hope and acting out of hope can cultivate a different kind of world worth being hopeful about, reinforcing itself in a virtuous spiral. Applied hope is not about some vague, far-off future but is expressed and created moment by moment through our choices. Hope, said Frances Moore Lappé, “is a stance, not an assessment.” But applied hope is not mere glandular optimism. The optimist treats the future as fate, not choice, and thus fails to take responsibility for making the world we want. Applied hope is a deliberate choice of heart and head. The optimist, says David Orr, has his feet up on the desk and a satisfi ed smirk knowing the deck is stacked. The person living in hope has her sleeves rolled up and is fi ghting hard to change or beat the odds. Optimism can easily mask cowardice. Applied hope requires fearlessness. Fear of specifi c and avoidable dangers has evolutionary value. Nobody has ancestors who weren’t mindful of saber-toothed tigers. But pervasive dread, lately promoted by some who want to keep us pickled in fear, is numbing and demotivating. When I give a talk, sometimes a questioner details the many bad things happening in the world, all the suffering in the universe, and asks how dare I propose solutions: isn’t resistance futile? The only response I’ve found is to ask, as gently as I can, “I can see why you feel that way. Does it make you more effective?” In a recent college class, one young woman bemoaned so many global problems that she said she’d lost all hope and couldn’t imagine bringing a child into such a world. But discussion quickly revealed to us both that she hadn’t lost hope at all; she knew exactly where she’d left it. The most solid foundation for feeling better about the future is to improve it tangibly, durably, reproducibly, and scalably. So now is the time to be practitioners, not theorists; to be synthesists, not specialists; to do solutions, not problems; to do transformation, not incremen- talism. Or as my mentor Edwin Land said, “Don’t undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible.” It’s time to shift our language and action, as my wife Judy says, from “Somebody should” to “I will,” to do real work on real projects, and to go to scale. As that early activist St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.”

51 In a world short of both hope and time, we need to practice Raymond Williams’s truth that “To be truly radical is to make hope possible, not despair convincing.” Hope becomes possible, practical̶even profi table̶when advanced resource effi ciency turns scarcity into plenitude. David Whyte’s poem “Loaves and Fishes” captures that goal thus:

This is not the age of information. This is not the age of information.

Forget the news, and the radio, and the blurred screen.

This is the time of loaves and fi shes.

People are hungry, and one good word is bread for a thousand.

So with the world so fi nely balanced between fear and hope, with the outcome in suspense and a whiff of imminent shift in the air, let us choose to add the small stubborn ounces of our weight on the side of applied hope. As Zen master Gôtô-roshi put it, “Infi nite gratitude toward all things past; infi nite service to all things present; infi nite responsibility to all things future.” This mission is challenging. It requires you to combine sizzle in your brain, fi re in your belly, perseverance rooted like a redwood, and soul as light as a butterfl y. According to the Internet, one Michael C. Muhammad said: “Everything works out right in the end. If things are not working right, it isn’t the end yet. Don’t let it bother you̶relax and keep on going.” So in this tranquil but unwavering spirit of applied hope, let me tell you a story. In the early 1950s, the Dayak people in Borneo had malaria. The World Health Organization had a solution: spray DDT. They did; mosquitoes died; malaria declined; so far, so good. But there were side-effects. House roofs started falling down on people’s heads, because the DDT also killed tiny parasitic wasps that had previously controlled thatch-eating caterpillars. The colonial government gave people sheet-metal roofs, but the noise of the tropical rain on the tin roofs kept people awake. Meanwhile, the DDT-poisoned bugs were eaten by geckoes, which were eaten by cats. The DDT built up in the food chain and killed the cats. Without the cats, the rats fl ourished and multiplied. Soon the World Health Organization was threatened with potential outbreaks of typhus and plague, which it would itself have

52 created, and had to call in RAF Singapore to conduct Operation Cat Drop̶parachuting a great many live cats into Borneo. This story̶our guiding parable at Rocky Mountain Institute̶shows that if you don’t understand how things are connected, often the cause of problems is solutions. Most of today’s problems are like that. But we can harness hidden connections so the cause of solutions is solutions: we solve, or better still avoid, not just one problem but many, without making new ones, before someone has to go parachuting more cats. So join me in envisioning where these linked, multiplying solutions can lead if you apply and extend what you’ve learned and take responsibility for creating the world you want. Details of this business-led future will be described this autumn in a book my team and I are now fi nishing, called Reinventing Fire. Imagine a world, a few short generations hence, where spacious, peppy, ultrasafe, 125- to 260-mpg cars whisper through revitalized cities and towns, convivial suburbs, and fertile, prosperous countryside, burning no oil and emitting pure drinking water or nothing; where sprawl is no longer mandated or subsidized, so stronger families eat better food on front porches and kids free of obesity, diabetes, and asthma play in thriving neighborhoods; where new buildings and plugged-in parked cars produce enough surplus energy to power the now- effi cient old buildings; and where buildings make people healthier, happier, and more productive, creating delight when entered, serenity when occupied, and regret when departed. Imagine a world where oil and coal and nuclear energy have all been phased out, all vanquished by the competitors whose lower costs and risks have already enabled them to capture most of the world’s market for new electrical services, energy effi ciency, distributed renewables, combined heat and power and optionally by small amounts of advanced biofuels that use no cropland and move carbon from air to tilth; where resilient, right-sized energy systems make major failures impossible, not inevitable; where the collapse of oil’s demand and price has defunded enemies, undermined dictatorship and corruption, and doused the Mideast tinderbox; where our advanced economy is no longer fueled at all by the rotted remains of primeval swamp goo and dinosaur droppings; where energy policy is no longer a gloomy multiple-choice test-do you prefer to die from (a) climate change, (b) oil wars, or (c) nuclear holocaust? We choose (d) none of the above. Imagine, therefore, a world where carbon emissions have long been steadily declining at a handsome profi t, because saving fuel costs less than buying fuel; where global climate has stabilized and repair has begun; and where this planetary near-death experience has fi nally made antisocial and unacceptable the arrogance that let cleverness imperil the whole human prospect by outrunning wisdom. Imagine a world where the successful industries, rather than wasting 99.98% of their materials, follow Ray C. Anderson’s lead: they take nothing, waste nothing, and do no harm; where the cost of waste is driving unnatural capitalism extinct; where service providers and their customers prosper by doing more and better with less for longer, so products become ever more effi cient to make and to use; where integrative engineering and biomimicry create abundance by design; and where elegant frugality turns scarcities and confl icts about energy, water, land, and minerals into enough, for all, for ever. Imagine a world where the war against the Earth is over; where we’ve stopped treating

53 soil like dirt, forests are expanding, farms emulate natural ecosystems, rivers run clean, oceans are starting to recover, fi sh and wildlife are returning, and a stabilizing, radically resource- effi cient human population needs ever less of the world’s land and metabolism, leaving more for all the relatives who give us life. Imagine a world where we don’t just know more̶we also know better; where overspecialization and reductionism have gone from thrillingly fashionable to unaffordably foolish; where Darwin fi nally beat Descartes; where vision across boundaries triumphs, simply because it works better and costs less. Imagine a world secure, free from fear of privation or attack: where confl ict prevention is as normal as fi re prevention; where confl icts not avoided are peacefully resolved through strengthened international laws, norms, and institutions; where threatened aggression is reliably deterred or defeated by nonprovocative defense that makes others feel and be more secure, not less; where all people can be nourished, healthy, and educated; and where all know Dr. King’s truth that “Peace is not the absence of war; it is the presence of justice.” Imagine a world where reason, diversity, tolerance, and democracy are once more ascendant; where economic and religious fundamentalism are obsolete; where tyranny is odious, rare, failing, and dwindling; and where global consciousness has transcended fear to live and strive in hope. This is the astonishing world we are all gradually creating together. It’s being built before our eyes by many of you and a myriad other world-weavers. Brains, as Gifford and Libba Pinchot note, are evenly distributed, one per person. Thus most of the world’s brains are in the South, half are in the heads of women, and most are in the heads of poor people. As an emerging global nervous system and millions of new civil-society organizations start to knit together that collective intelligence, the most powerful thing we know in the Universe- innovation and collaboration, are starting to overcome stagnation and squabbles. The search for intelligent life on Earth continues, but as we all strive to become much higher primates, some promising specimens are turning up just in time: each of you here today. In their many ways, they’re mobilizing society’s most potent forces, businesses in mindful markets and citizens in vibrant civil society, to do what is necessary at this pivotal moment, the most important moment since we walked out of Africa: the moment when humanity has exactly enough time, starting now. Each of you can choose to be one of those unusual people who with humor and courage, chutzpah and humility, eager enthusiasm and relentless patience are composing their lives and combining their efforts to make it so. Here we are. And now imagine the power of all of us together to make it so.

54 Lecture Profi table, Business-Led Solutions to the Climate, Oil, and Proliferation Problems

Dr. Amory B. Lovins

I appreciate the great honor of suggesting here some integrated and profi table solutions to three of the world's biggest challenges̶climate change, oil dependence, and the spread of nuclear bombs̶in the spirit of Raymond Williams's remark that "To be truly radical is to make hope possible, not despair convincing."

Until my "Foreign Affairs" article in 1976, the energy problem was generally thought to be where to get more energy-more, from any source, at any price, increasingly in the costliest and highest-quality form (electricity), made from depletable resources in ever bigger facilities. Instead, I redefi ned the energy problem around "end-uses"-the tasks that we want energy for, like hot baths, cold beer, comfort, mobility, cooked food, and smelted alumina. I asked how much energy, of what quality, at what scale, from what source, would do each end-use task in the cheapest way. This question reveals what happens when all ways to save or produce energy can compete fairly, at honest prices, no matter which kind they are (savings or supply), what technology they use, how big they are, where they are, or who owns them. Of course, that hypothetical world is far from today's actual energy policies in any country, but it remains a sound goal.

Slide 1* - The end-use/least-cost question led to a different answer about the energy future of, say, the United States over the next half-century. In 1975, all government and industry forecasts of U.S. energy use pointed to the upper right, along the red curve. I heretically suggested that this red curve could be fl attened and then decreased, as in the dashed blue curve, by wringing more work from our energy-by substituting technology and brains for energy and money. That curve was within 4% of actual U.S. energy use in 2000, although the takeoff of "soft technologies"-diverse, renewable sources the right size and quality for their task-was delayed a quarter-century by largely hostile government policies that suppressed competition and even exported to Japan and Europe the fl edgling solar industries that U.S. innovation had hatched. But now we can to do far better than my 1976 soft-path blue curve,especially in saving electricity and oil.

Slide 2 - Of course, there are many important differences between energy systems in America and Japan, most obviously in prices, climates, and land-uses. But in many key ways, the similarities seem to me more important than the differences. Energy intensity-the energy used to make a dollar of GDP-is two to three times higher in America than in Japan, due substantially to bigger houses and travel distances and to more and bigger appliances. In some uses,

55

* There are supplement slides at the back of the section. especially in certain industries, Japanese industry is famously #1 in technical effi ciency. But energy effi ciency is improving much faster in America than in Japan, and some sectors in Japan, especially building, appear to be lagging. Japan is more conscious of the dangers of oil dependence, but America is catching up quickly. Of course, Japan never had its own oil resources; America had abundant oil, but its output peaked in 1970, has since fallen by half, to only two-fi fths of U.S. supply; the rest is cheaper imports. Both countries have large and diverse renewable energy potential: Japan's is the largest per person of any major industrial nation. But this potential is badly underused and poorly understood in both countries. America's national energy policy is weak and fragmented (many states do far better); Japan's is strong and coherent but is less transparently formed and, as in America, sometimes refl ects factional interests more than the national interest. Both countries have powerful engines of innovation- America's driven mainly by small businesses and independent inventors, Japan's mainly by giant companies and keiretsus. America's great strength is wildly diverse and chaotic entrepreneurship; Japan's is social cohesion and the wisdom of a long history. America's main energy weakness is its utterly dysfunctional national policy, but there are many ways to get around those roadblocks, mainly through the private sector. Japan's main energy handicap is the unfounded belief that the nation is poor in energy and can't become much more effi cient than it already is.

Slide 3 - A new McKinsey study refl ects the growing offi cial realization that global energy effi ciency can be greatly and profi tably improved beyond its normal spontaneously achieved levels. The potential energy savings costing less than the energy they save can nearly pay for all the costlier ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thus reductions totaling 46% of the total emissions projected for the world in 2030 would have an average cost of only about two

Euros, or ¥325, per tonne of CO2-equivalent avoided. I believe this encouraging result is still very conservative because it understates the amount and overstates the cost of available energy effi ciency improvements, some of which I'll summarize here.

Slide 4 - In Japan, a fascinating study is emerging from the National Institute of Environmental Studies thanks to support from the Ministry of the Environment. About 60 diverse experts have constructed two plausible scenarios for Japan in 2050-one busy and urban, the other more traditional, serene, and community-centered. Both are consistent with the basic assumptions of government policy; both have growing wealth and technology; both have an extremely high standard of living and, in their different styles, quality of life. Strikingly, both scenarios reduce national CO2 emissions by 70% below 1990 levels.

Slide 5 - This is achieved through a mixture of better land-use or societal organization, returning per-capita steel and cement production to Western norms (they're now twice that high due to exaggerated infrastructure investments), and switching to lower-carbon energy sources and more effi cient end-use technologies. The extra cost of all these improvements in 2050 is estimated at roughly ¥1 trillion per year, or about 0.1% of GDP at that time. This is already a very impressive and encouraging result. But I'd like to explore whether, even in already rather energy-effi cient Japan, end-use effi ciency might be improved even more than

56 the assumed 24-41%, and at even lower cost than assumed, thus making even bigger reductions in greenhouses gases both feasible and profi table. If Japanese people can do this, then others who are now less effi cient can save even more.

It may seem odd to talk about "profi table" climate protection, because the whole political discourse is about how this will be costly, requiring us all to forego wealth, crimp lifestyles, bear burdens, and make sacrifi ces. But climate protection is actually like the Hubble Space Telescope. How? Both got messed up by a sign error-a confusion between a plus sign and a minus sign. In fact, climate protection is not costly but profi table, because saving fuel costs less than buying fuel. Every practitioner understands this; only some politicians and journalists, and therefore many citizens, do not. But once they do, especially in the United States, political resistance to protecting the climate will melt even faster than glaciers.

Many companies do understand this, so whether or not they worry about climate change, they are buying energy effi ciency just to make money. For example:

・ Two of the world's biggest chipmakers have been cutting their CO2 emissions by 6% every year by improving their factories, recovering their investments in ~2-3 years. ・DuPont set an ambitious goal to cut its energy use per dollar of output by 6% a year, switch toward renewable fuels and feedstocks, and cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 to 65% less than in 1990. By 2006, DuPont was 80% below 1990 emissions and had made $3 billion profi t by substituting effi ciency for fuel. ・Dow made an even bigger profi t by cutting its energy intensity by 42% in 15 years. ・ BP met its operational carbon-reduction goals 8 years early at a net profi t of $2 billion. ・ General Electric has promised to raise its energy effi ciency 30% in 7 years to enhance shareholder value. ・Interface, a carpet and textile maker, has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 60% in a decade (an average rate of over 9% per year) at a third of a billion dollars' profi t. By 2020, the fi rm intends to eliminate all waste and all fossil-fuel input. Already it has the industry's strongest, least oil-dependent cost structure and much stronger profi ts. ・ Texas Instruments is commissioning a new chip fab in Texas, not China, because my team was able to help reduce its capital cost by $230 million, or 30%, while saving a fi fth of the energy and a third of the water. The next design should save over 50% via two additional energy-saving methods. So while politicians keep lamenting the "costs" of climate protection, such smart fi rms are racing to grab the profi ts before their competitors do!

Slide 6 - Yet the whole climate problem is caused by one percentage point. Here's what that means. Professor Youichi KAYA notes that how fast the global economy emits carbon by burning fossil fuel is the product of four terms: population, times per-capita GDP, times the rate of using primary energy per unit of GDP, times how much carbon each unit of energy supply releases. Economic theorists normally assume certain rates of change for these variables. Their net effect is a 1% annual increase in carbon emissions-enough to triple emissions by 2100. Those promoting their favorite forms of energy supply generally debate

57 the rather small, green term showing carbon reductions per unit of energy. But the red term showing energy intensity-energy used per dollar of GDP-is normally assumed to change four times faster, even though that's only 1% per year. If we could double that modest pace, to 2% per year, it would offset population and economic growth, stabilizing global carbon emissions. If we could increase the rate of cutting energy intensity further, to 3% per year, we'd reduce carbon emissions and rather quickly stabilize the earth's climate, to the extent irreversible changes aren't already underway. So it is plausible that we could raise the world's energy productivity by 2-3% per year, whether by using energy more effi ciently, making the mix of outputs less energy-intensive, or changing behaviors?

Some major countries already do this without even paying attention. The United States normally saves about 3% of its energy use per dollar of GDP each year; in 2006, that reached 4% per year, and total U.S. energy use went down 0.8% while GDP rose 3.3%. California generally saves energy about one percentage point faster than the whole United States-around 4% a year. China saved more than 5% a year for over 20 years, then nearly 8% a year for 5 years (until coming off the rails during 2001-06-this is now being fi xed); energy effi ciency is China's top strategic priority for national development, which otherwise becomes impossible. Attentive companies, some of which I've just named, routinely and profi tably cut their energy intensity or even their absolute energy use or carbon emissions by 6-9% a year. So why should it be so hard for the world to achieve 3% a year? and since everyone who saves energy also makes money at it, why should this be costly? Japan, having saved energy so inspiringly in the 1970s and early 1980s, then slowed down; the pace of saving energy per yen of GDP averaged only 0.7 per year from 1977 to 2004. The government's New National Energy Strategy calls for doubling that pace, and the National Institute of Environmental Studies' scenarios would speed it a little further, though nowhere near, say, the U.S. rate. Even so [Slide 7], the equitable vision of "contraction and convergence," where all countries have the same carbon emission rights per person and everyone continues to get richer (especially in developing countries), could head for carbon reductions around 90% over the next century. Could that grand vision of a richer, fairer, cooler, and safer world actually be feasible and profi table? And could Japan lead the way?

Slide 8 - Some think not. Yomiuri Shimbun spoke for many when it remarked that "Japan's energy effi ciency level is unlikely to improve much, since it is already the best in the world." Hmmm. Is that how Toyota thinks about making cars? Is it how Japan became such a mighty industrial power? Doesn't continuous improvement apply to energy as much as to manufacturing? Isn't Japan still the best in the world at this kaizen? As an admirer of Japan's scientifi c and technical genius as much as of its unique contributions to world culture, I believe Japan can lead this global leapfrog. And I know frogs leap also in Japan, because Bashô tells us so: furu ike ya kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto To see how this Japanese frog can leap ahead of the world, let's focus on oil and

58 electricity, each of which is responsible for two-fi fths of the world's CO2 emissions.

First let's see where we're starting. Many of Japan's leading fi rms have already made impressive and exciting contributions to saving the climate: Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Ricoh, Kirin, and many more. But outside such pioneering companies, challenges have emerged.

Slide 9 - The per-capita use of electricity is the most important indicator of climate progress, because classical power plants use roughly three or four units of fuel to make and deliver one unit of electricity, and worldwide, most of their fuel is coal, the most carbon-intensive kind. Notice how, since 1965, the orange line, for Japan, has been rising about as steeply as the purple line, for Texas, or the green line, for the whole United States. There are many causes: strong industrial growth until recent years, a reversal of previously falling energy intensity in some big industries since 1990, a 45% increase in household electricity per person. That rise in turn is due to more and bigger appliances and to a huge increase in lighting, which operates for much longer hours in Japanese homes than anywhere else, partly because of long commutes. Meanwhile, too, houses became a little better insulated, but indoor temperatures, traditionally around 15 ℃, rose even faster, the kotatsu gave way to bigger room heaters, and air conditioners to cool ineffi cient buildings continued to displace traditional architecture, attitudes, and customs. Now compare the red line, California, where (as in New York State) the average citizen's total electricity use in all sectors is now slightly below that of the average Japanese person. In the past 30 years, while the average Japanese person's total electricity use doubled, the average Californian's total electricity use stayed fl at even though her real income rose by 79%. Half of this dramatic effi ciency gain came from strong and early effi ciency standards for buildings and appliances. The other half came from rewarding utilities for cutting your bill, not for selling you more energy (as Japan and nearly all of the United States still do). Using electricity far more effi ciently has saved California from building 65 billion watts of power stations, which with their grid investments would have cost upwards of $100 billion. Since Japan has 3.4 times more people than California, this implies that if Japanese people had held their electricity use fl at for 30 years rather than doubling it, they wouldn't have needed tens of trillions of yen worth of electricity supply investments that help make Japanese electricity some of the costliest in the world.

Slide 10 - But don't those doubled-effi ciency hybrid cars pioneered in Japan, not to mention those amazing Japanese mini-cars, make Japan a leader in oil effi ciency? Not exactly. If we compare different countries' household vehicles (cars, vans, SUVs, and pickup trucks) using the same test procedures, we're surprised to fi nd that in the late 1990s, the average Japanese light-duty vehicle became as ineffi cient as its American counterpart, pulling only slightly ahead in the past two years. These broad facts, plus the technical literature and my decades of observations of how energy is used in Japan, suggest that there are surprising parallels between our two countries' potential for further profi table gains in energy effi ciency. My team's very detailed studies and practical experience illustrate that potential to be in the United States.

59 There, if we fully adopted today's best effi ciency techniques, we'd save over half the oil at a sixth of its price, half the gas at an eighth of its price, and three-fourths of the electricity at an eighth of its price. Implementing these radical effi ciency gains would require extra investments equal to only one-sixth of the current direct price of the energy they'd save (at prices far below Japan's). This shift would also make energy cheaper, stabilize prices and keep them lower for longer, dramatically cut CO2, enhance security, and buy time to learn more, choose better, and develop and deploy better techniques. While many details differ between the U.S. and Japan, I believe the Japanese potential for percentage reduction in energy use is not fundamentally different. The distinguished engineer KOMIYAMA Hiroshi-sensei, President of Tokyo University, agrees that about two-thirds of Japanese energy can be advantageously saved.

Slide 11 - To illustrate what can be done in buildings, which in Japan are particularly underinsulated, let's visit my own house, indoor farm, and offi ce high in the Colorado Rockies at 2200 meters (7100 feet) above sea level. There we have seen temperatures as low as -44℃ (-47°F), 39 days of continuous midwinter cloud, and frost on any day of the year. Yet if you come in out of the snowstorm into the central atrium, you're in a jungle where I've already harvested 28 banana crops and the new banana trees are growing 2 cm per day-and then you realize there's no furnace. The superinsulated house is 99% heated by the solar gain through the superwindows (which insulate as well as 12 to 19 sheets of glass, but look like 2 and cost less than 3), plus the heat from people, lights, and appliances. These heat-saving techniques reduced total construction cost by $1100, because they added less capital cost than I saved by not installing a heating system. I then reinvested that money, plus a further $6000-a net total of about ¥1900/m2-in saving also 99% of the water-heating energy, half the water, and 90% of the household electricity. If I bought my home's electricity rather than making it with solar panels, it would cost only about ¥600 per month for 372 m2. All these effi ciencies together repaid their extra cost in ten months with 1983 technologies; today we can do much better. In a hot climate, up to 46℃ (115 °F), this ordinary-looking California tract house, with the obligatory stupid dark roof, was designed to use one-tenth the normal U.S. amount of energy. It provided excellent comfort with no air-conditioner, yet if built in quantity, would have cost about $1800 less than normal to build and $1600 less over time to maintain, because it had no heating or cooling equipment. Or in steamy Bangkok, architecture Professor Soontorn BOONYATIKARN built this modern house, at exactly normal cost, providing superior comfort with one tenth the normal amount of air-conditioning energy. These three houses, spanning the range of the earth's climates, show how integrative design-getting multiple benefi ts from single expenditures-can make very large energy savings cost less than small savings!

Slide 12 - That sounds odd to economic theorists who believe in "diminishing returns": the more energy you save, the more and more steeply the cost of the next unit of savings keeps rising, until it gets too expensive and you must stop. Insulation does work this way. If, like most engineers, you buy only as much insulation as will repay its extra cost from saved heating fuel over the years, then you will have thin insulation and a big furnace burning costly fuel.

60 But if you remember to minimize total cost-construction cost as well as operating cost-then you'll discover a new part of the curve: [Slide 13] you can add so much insulation that you eliminate the whole heating system-furnace, pipes, pumps, ducts, fans, wires, controls, and fuel-supply arrangements! This makes the capital cost come down to less than you started with, just as my house saves 99% of its heating energy, at a lower construction cost than if I'd tried to save little or nothing.

Slide 14 - And rather than getting there the long way around, we can "tunnel through the cost barrier" directly to that design destination-muda nashi (no waste). (For details on how to do this, www.rmi.org/stanford posts my fi ve new Stanford University lectures on advanced energy effi ciency.) And this isn't just some magic we do in Colorado. Central and northern Europe already have more than ten thousand "Passive Houses" that are comfortable with no heating systems, with zero extra construction cost.

Surprisingly, we can tunnel through the cost barrier not only in new buildings but also in retrofi ts (fi xing up old buildings) if we properly coordinate with other major renovations that are happening anyway, such as renewing the façade or the mechanical equipment. For example, in 1994 we designed a retrofi t for a 19,000m2 curtainwall offi ce building in Chicago, which has both a hot and a cold climate. The 20-year-old window units had failing edge seals, so the whole curtainwall needed reglazing. But rather than replacing the dark heat-absorbing glass with the same kind, we found superwindows that would be nearly perfect in letting in light without heat. They'd admit nearly six times more visible light and a tenth less unwanted heat, and would block the fl ow of heat and noise 3-4 times better, at a slightly higher cost. But adding glare-free daylight distribution all the way through the building, plus very effi cient and well-controlled lights and offi ce equipment, would cut the peak cooling load by 77%. Then replacing the cooling system with a new one four times smaller and nearly four times more effi cient would cost $200,000 less than renovating the big old system (for age and to eliminate its CFCs [chlorofl uorocarbons]). That capital saving could then pay for the superwindows and the lighting and daylighting retrofi ts, yielding a 75% energy saving with a payback of minus fi ve months-that is, a lower capital cost-compared with the normal 20-year renovation that saves nothing.

We can tunnel through the cost barrier not just in buildings but also in vehicles and factories. For example, a loop to pump a heat-transfer fl uid around a factory was designed by a noted European engineering fi rm to use 70.8 kW of pumping power. A Dutch engineer using our methods reduced this by 92%, to 5.3 kW, at lower construction cost and with better performance, via two changes in design mentality that resulted in using fat, short, straight pipes rather than thin, long, crooked pipes. This is not rocket science; it's just Victorian integrative design rediscovered.

Slide 15 - I've offered you a pumping example because power plants release 40% of the world's CO2, three-fi fths of electricity runs motors, and pumps and fans, which have similar physics, are the two biggest uses of motors. If you feed ten units of coal into a classical power

61 station, nine units get lost in the compounding losses of conversion, distribution, and then the motor and pumping systems. Only one unit of energy comes out of the pipe as fl ow. But if we reverse those compounding losses into compounding savings, then each unit of fl ow or friction saved in the pipe saves ten units of coal, climate change, and cost at the power plant. It also makes the motor about 2.5 units smaller (hence cheaper). All the upstream components become smaller, simpler, and cheaper. That's why we should always start saving at the downstream end.

Slide 16 - For example, often a big pump, meant to send fl uid up a pipe, has an adjacent helper pump or identical in-place spare pump. They're drawn and then built so that the fl ow must always go through two 90°bends (friction) and two valves. A new design mentality could make the fl ow go through no bends and no valves (or one valve).

Slide 17 - When my colleague, engineer Peter RUMSEY, did this in retrofi tting a pumping loop, his odd-looking piping layout saved 75% of the pumping energy and eliminated 15 pumps that will never again waste electricity and maintenance.

My team has lately redesigned more than $30 billion worth of facilities for radical energy effi ciency. In motor systems, for example, 35 kinds of improvements can save about half the electricity (not counting any previous, and typically even cheaper, savings in the systems that the motor is driving, like pumps and pipes). But the cost is repaid within a year because you need to buy only 7 kinds of savings; the other 28 are free byproducts. We see similarly rapid returns when saving half the energy used to make chilled water and clean air in chip fabs. Whether we're retrofi tting an oil refi nery or platform, a naval vessel, a huge liquefi ed natural gas (LNG) plant, or a giant platinum mine, or designing a new Fischer-Tropsch plant, data center, chip fab, supermarket, two chemical plants, even a luxury yacht, we typically fi nd that retrofi ts can save ~30-60% of the energy with a 2-3-year payback, while in new installations, we save more, generally 40-90%, and the capital cost almost always goes down. We have "tunneled through the cost barrier" in 29 diverse sectors of the economy-every one we've tried. Of course, none of this would be possible if the designs had been optimal to start with. I'm getting tired of retrofi tting things that weren't designed right the fi rst time. To get to the root of the problem, we must reform engineering practice and pedagogy fundamentally. I hope next summer to help leading practitioners write a casebook on Factor Ten Engineering, presenting in detail such vivid examples that they will irreversibly rearrange engineers' mental furniture. Our aim is the nonviolent overthrow of bad engineering. We warmly invite practitioners who think this way to share their most compelling case-studies via www.10xE.org.

Now let's turn to oil, whose burning releases 42% of the world's CO2, and which has many other problems. (For example, two-thirds of Saudi oil fl ows through one processing plant that's already been attacked, and through two terminals of which the larger has already been attacked twice.) In 2004, my team published Winning the Oil Endgame (www.oilendgame. com)-an independent study, cosponsored by the Offi ce of the U.S. Secretary of Defense and written for business and military leaders, for getting the United States completely off oil by the

62 2040s, with a much stronger economy, all led by business for profi t.

Slide 18 - Rather than always rising, U.S. oil use (the solid red line) and oil imports (the dashed red line) could be turned down along the green lines by redoubling the effi ciency of using oil- already doubled since 1975-at an average cost of $12 per saved barrel (2000). We could then turn down even more steeply along the blue lines by replacing the other half of the oil with saved natural gas and advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, all at an average cost of $18 per barrel. Thus the average cost of eliminating U.S. oil use is only $15 per barrel, or about one-fi fth the current world price-assuming that the hidden environmental, security, and other costs of oil are worth zero, a conservatively low estimate. Even faster oil savings are possible, because the U.S. actually achieved them when it last paid attention to oil. During the eight years 1977-85, America's GDP grew 27%, oil use fell 17%, oil imports fell 50%, and oil imports from the Persian Gulf fell 87%. (They'd have been gone in the next year if this had continued.) The world, including Japan, saved so much oil that OPEC's exports fell 48%, breaking the cartel's pricing power for a decade. We customers-especially in America, the Saudi Arabia of "negabarrels"-had more market power than the suppliers, because we could save oil faster than they could conveniently sell less oil. That was practice; this is real. Today we could re-run that old play much better, using our far more powerful technologies. Suppose that by 2025 the United States invests $180 billion in the journey beyond oil- half to retool its car, truck, and plane industries, half to build an advanced biofuels industry. Suppose that the world oil price were then just $26 a barrel (2000) which might be true if we saved that much oil! But even against this low oil price, the $180 billion investment would earn a handsome net return of $70 billion per year. As a free byproduct, CO2 emissions would fall 26%. America would also get a million new jobs (three-fourths rural) and could save a million jobs now at risk, mainly in automaking, where the choice is whether to continue importing effi cient cars to replace oil or to make effi cient cars and import neither the cars nor the oil. Our study's competitive-strategy analysis for the car, truck, plane, fuel, and military sectors found a business logic so compelling that public policy need only support, not distort, the business logic. Rather than needing government to force us to commit unnatural acts in the marketplace, the profi t motive could implement this off-oil transition without new energy taxes, subsidies, mandates, or national laws-though a compatible policy framework would speed the transition, and we did suggest new policies more effective and attractive than traditional ones.

Technologically, the key is transport, which uses 70% of U.S. oil. But making trucks, cars, and planes lighter-weight, lower-drag, and with advanced propulsion could triple their effi ciency, with uncompromised comfort and performance and better safety, and repay the buyers' extra cost in 1, 2, and 4-5 years respectively at low U.S. fuel prices. Often performance would improve too, as in the Opel Eco-Speedster carbon-fi ber diesel hybrid car that gets 250 km/h (155 mph) and 40 km/L (94 mpg), although not at the same instant! Surprisingly, the ultralighting that doubles the effi ciency of these carbon-fi ber concept cars doesn't raise their

63 production cost, because the costlier material is offset by simpler automaking and a 2-3-times smaller powertrain.

Slide 19 - This opportunity emerges from the physics of a typical car. Each day it burns ~100 times its weight in ancient plants (very ineffi ciently converted to gasoline). But where does that energy go? Seven-eighths of it never reaches the wheels, but is lost fi rst in the engine, idling, driveline, and accessories. Of the one-eighth that does reach the wheels, half heats the tires and road or heats the air that the car pushes aside. Only the last 6% of the fuel energy accelerates the car and then heats the brakes when you stop. But since only one-twentieth of the mass being accelerated is you-the rest is the car-only 5% of 6%, or 0.3%, of the fuel energy ends up moving the driver! After 120 years of devoted engineering effort, this is not very gratifying. But there's good news. Three-fourths of the energy needed to move the car is caused by its weight, and every unit of energy we save at the wheels saves seven more units we needn't waste getting it to the wheels, so there's huge leverage in making the car radically lighter- weight.

Slide 20 - Traditionally this meant light metals like aluminum, which cost more but work well. I drive a 27-km/L (3.56 L/100 km, 64 mpg) Japanese aluminum hybrid car. New ultralight steels are starting to compete too. The strongest, lightest solution is composites reinforced by carbon fi ber. This Mercedes SLC McLaren supercar, handmade for a half-million dollars, is made of such "advanced composites." It was hit by a VW Golf, which was totaled, but the McLaren only lost a side-panel, which they'll snap back on and fi x the scratch later. At the front corners, under the hood, is a pair of 3.5-kg carbon-fi ber crush cones that can absorb the entire crash energy of this car's hitting a wall at 105 km/h, because such materials in the right shapes can absorb 6-12 times as much crash energy per kg as steel, and do so more smoothly. Such light-but-strong materials let us make cars big (which is protective and comfortable) without also making them heavy (which is hostile and ineffi cient), so we can save oil, lives, and money all at the same time.

Of course, advanced composites' challenge is cost. They're used in military and aerospace applications at about a thousand times higher cost and lower volume than automakers need. But I became encouraged about bridging that gap when I met a young Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works engineer who had led the development of a 95%-carbon fi ghter plane that was one-third lighter, yet two-thirds cheaper, because it was optimally designed for manufacturing from carbon, not metal. It was so unusual that he couldn't fi nd a military customer, so in due course I was able to hire him to do the same for cars, which we did in 2000 with two European Tier One auto engineering fi rms (www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T04-01_ HypercarH2AutoTrans.pdf). Meanwhile, a new manufacturing method for making cost-competitive advanced- composite automotive structures is being rapidly commercialized by a small fi rm I chaired; for example, this test piece for an ultralight helmet, tougher than titanium and able to withstand a sledgehammer, can be made in less than a minute. Cars made of similar materials would

64 weigh half as much as today's steel cars, save half the fuel, be safer, yet cost the same to make. Making American cars this way would be like fi nding an inexhaustible Saudi Arabia under Detroit.

Here's the car we designed in 2000 that could be made with such a process. It's an uncompromised midsize SUV that can carry fi ve adults in comfort and up to 2 m3 of cargo, haul a half-ton up a 44% grade, accelerate 0-100 km/h in 7.2 seconds, yet increase effi ciency by 3.6-fold to 28 km/L (3.51 L/100 km, 67 mpg) using a Prius-like gasoline hybrid powertrain. Such a car would have an extra retail price of $2511 (2000 $), repaying its extra cost from one year's fuel savings in Japan or two years' in America. Or if run on a hydrogen fuel cell, it would achieve 6.2-fold higher effi ciency, 48.5 km/L (2.06 L/100 km, 114 mpg), and could compete one or two decades sooner than heavy steel cars. That's because needing two-thirds less energy, the car's hydrogen tanks would become small enough to fi t and its fuel cell would become small enough to afford early. Most interestingly, such vehicles would have ~99% lower tooling cost than today's steel cars, would need no body shop or paint shop (the two hardest and costliest stages in automaking), and would need at least two-fi fths less capital than the industry's leanest plant today.

Such gamechanging technologies make me wonder if U.S. automakers might use radical energy effi ciency as a competitive strategy, much as Japanese automakers did in boldly introducing and then selling more than a million hybrid-electric cars and building up a formidable lead in that technology-in which GM was once 18 months ahead of Toyota but then stumbled. Such an American leapfrog, in airplanes, is now getting attention in Detroit. In 1997, Boeing was in a crisis much like Detroit's today. The Toyota Manufacturing System and other wrenching changes at Boeing Commercial Airplanes brought costs under control, but there was little viable innovation in the pipeline after the 777. In 2003, Airbus outsold Boeing, and some serious analysts were starting to doubt Boeing's longevity. But in 2004, Boeing's riposte was the 787 Dreamliner-one-fi fth more effi cient at the same price, 50% carbon-fi ber composites by mass (up from 9% in the 777 ), with many customer and operator advantages and with assembly time cut from 11 days to 3. It's now sold out into 2014. Its order takeoff has been the fastest of any airplane in history. Now Boeing is bringing those innovations to every commercial airplane it makes, before Airbus can even steer itself out of the ditch. This stunning success naturally makes U.S. automakers wonder: if you're in the ring with the world champion sumo wrestler, do you just keep training to become a little faster and stronger-or do you quietly shift the game to aikidoh?

My team is two-thirds of the way through an effort to make America's journey off oil irreversible, via "institutional acupuncture": we fi gure out where the business logic is congested and not fl owing properly, and we stick needles into it to stimulate the fl ow. I think we're already past the tipping point-with much more work to do, but it gets easier from now on-in three of the six sectors we must infl uence. In aviation, Boeing's effi ciency leapfrog has won, and will doubtless fi nance rapid development of even more effi cient airplanes to make its lead unassailable. In heavy trucks, based on our analysis, Wal-Mart (the world's largest company)

65 is requiring double deffi ciency trucks from its suppliers; that "demand pull" drags the trucks into the market where everyone can buy them, saving 6% of U.S. oil use (ultimately 8% with the next step-tripled-effi ciency trucks). The U.S. Department of Defense is rapidly becoming the most important part of the Federal government in leading the country off oil, so ultimately they needn't fi ght over oil. Military leaders really like the idea of nega-missions in the Persian Gulf-Mission Unnecessary. There is also gratifying progress in the fuel and fi nance sectors: in 2006 alone, the "clean energy" space received $71 billion of new private investment. Obviously the slowest and hardest sector to transform is automaking, but here too, progress is quickly accelerating. In 2004, our study proposed that Detroit follow Boeing's competitive strategy based on breakthroughs in ultralight materials, advanced propulsion, and integrative design. Two years later, Ford Motor Company hired the head of Boeing Commer- cial Airplanes, who had led that revolution, as its new CEO; he is now in Detroit with transformational intent. The United Autoworkers' Union and the car dealers are keen for such innovation to save their industry. The tsunami of "creative destruction" (as economist Joseph Schumpeter called it) sweeping over the global auto industry-plus emerging competition from India, China, and others-is now the greatest since the 1920s. It will change automakers' managers or their minds, whichever comes fi rst: both Ford and Chrysler now have turnaround- expert CEOs from outside the auto industry. Indeed, my team currently has two transforma- tional auto projects underway, one at an automaker level and one at a Tier One supplier level, and this spring, both surpassed expectations.

Japanese automakers' extraordinary achievements since the 1990s in commercializing hybrid-electric cars are just the fi rst step. An excellent hybrid like Prius, properly driven, roughly doubles effi ciency, much more if ultimately equipped with a diesel engine (if it can be clean enough) or its ~60% effi cient successor, the "digital engine" fi rst tested by Sturman Industries, a small Colorado fi rm, in January 2007. Making today's hybrid cars ultralight, with better aerodynamics and tires, can redouble their effi ciency at no extra cost with highly integrative design. Fueling such "Hypercars " with 85% sustainably grown cellulosic ethanol or butanol and only 15% gasoline quadruples again their kilometers per liter of oil, reducing cars' oil use to 1/16th the current level. But then we can go further, beyond our oil-endgame analysis. For example, Toyota is to road-test in November 2007, and is rumored to be preparing to sell as early as Model Year 2008, a plug-in hybrid-electric car. Such vehicles could again at least redouble the effi ciency of using oil, reduce carbon emissions, and require no new power stations. Moreover, a plug-in hybrid intelligently connected to the power grid when parked could exploit the "vehicle-to- grid" opportunity I invented in the early 1990s, selling electricity from its distributed storage capacity back to the electric companies when and where it's most valuable. This could justify utility fi nancing for the costly batteries. Later, fuel-cell Hypercars could act as power plants on wheels, able when parked (~96% of the time) to earn impressive profi ts-for the fi rst two million Americans to do so, roughly the whole cost of the car-by selling power back to utilities downtown on hot afternoons. This could readily put the coal and nuclear power plants out of business, since a full U.S. Hypercar fl eet would have 6-12 times as much generating capacity as all the utilities now own. Thus Hypercar technology could end up profi tably eliminating the

66 majority of CO2 emissions by addressing both their oil and electricity causes. But even without fuel cells, just biofueled plug-in ultralight hybrids could cut cars' oil use per km by 97%. Then hydrogen (and battery-powered pure-electric cars) could compete for the last 3% as well as for the biofuel market. Hydrogen fuel cells, practical and affordable when put in Hypercars, will reduce drivers' cost per km and will cut CO2 per km by 2-6-fold, then become carbon-free with sequestration or renewable hydrogen.

Cars last about 14 years (except in Japan, where the government makes us scrap them prematurely), and planning and tooling new models takes years, so big automotive change is painfully slow. But U.S. automakers took only six years in the 1920s to switch from wood to steel autobodies, and at the start of World War II, converting all car factories to make war materiel took just six months. The last time the U.S. paid attention to oil, it cut oil intensity by more than 5% per year (like displacing a Persian Gulf's worth of imports every 2.5 years); the biggest saving came from a nearly 5% annual gain in the effi ciency of new domestic cars-96% from making them smarter, and only 4% from making them smaller. In recent years, Boeing has inverted the airplane industry's competitive ranking in just 2-4 years, with a breakthrough product a hundred-fold more complex and even more highly regulated than a car. General Motors's small team took the breakthrough EV1 battery-electric car from concept to street in three years. Thus even big organizations can move quickly if the effi cient new product is simpler than the ineffi cient old one. Of course, normal S-curve diffusion of new technologies normally takes 12-15 years to take the stock of product from 10% to 90% adoption, but the kinds of innovative competitive strategies and public policies we suggest in Winning the Oil Endgame can reach the 10% "takeoff point" three years earlier and then spread much faster.

Slide 21 - The oil industry views its global extractable resource base as a supply curve with rising costs. One trillion barrels have already been burned. The International Energy Agency says the world will need about that much again through 2030-about the amount that OPEC countries in the Middle East offi cially claim they can provide at a price far above the competitive free-market price of about $5-14 per barrel. After that, oil or its conventional substitutes become rapidly more diffi cult, remote, costly, and disagreeable.

Slide 22 - But if we add the savings and substitutes documented in Winning the Oil Endgame, conservatively scaled from the United States to the world, the whole supply curve slides three trillion barrels to the right, saving probably tens of trillions of dollars.

Slide 23 - Since resources like tar sands, oil shales, and coal-to-liquids are not only costly but also far more carbon-intensive than conventional oil, not using them also keeps more than a trillion tonnes of carbon out of the air.

Let me conclude with a few remarks about electricity-the other two-fi fths of the CO2 problem-and about Japan's unique opportunity to lead all these changes.

Slide 24 - With electricity at least as much as with oil, effi ciency is a rapidly moving target. In

67 the early days of exploring America's "negawatt" potential, 1984-89, the effi ciency resource became twice as big but three times cheaper in just fi ve years. Since then, it has become still bigger and cheaper, thanks to mass production (often in Asia), innovation, competition, and the pervasive effects of the IT revolution. Consider refrigerators, for example-the biggest user of electricity in most U.S. houses that don't use electricity to heat space or water. The electricity used by a new refrigerator soared until the fi rst oil shock, partly because refrigerators kept getting bigger. They stopped getting bigger around 1980 so they could still fi t through the door and into the kitchen. But meanwhile, California and then Federal effi ciency standards quadrupled their effi ciency, saving energy by 5% a year, while refrigerators also became 64% cheaper. Japan's recent progress (though under a different test procedure) has been even faster. And there's still room for improvement, as illustrated by the custom-made refrigerator I've used since 1985 and the Dutch state of the art in 2000.

Slide 25 - In the late 1980s, my team synthesized a decade of what is probably still the most detailed effort to assess how much electricity can be saved at what cost. Measured cost and performance data showed that fully applying ~1,000 effi ciency technologies in new and existing buildings and factories could save ~75% of America's 1986 electricity use, at an average technical cost that in today's money would be about 1 U.S. cent per saved kWh. The North American utilities' think-tank, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), found a somewhat smaller potential saving-only 40-60% by 2000-but still cheaper than the cost of just operating a coal or nuclear power plant and delivering its electricity. (Most of the differences between these two studies were due to methodology, not substance.) Our fi ndings were also consistent with other studies in Europe. And as EPRI agrees, the effi ciency technologies continue to improve in cost and performance faster than we're using them up, so saved electricity, or "negawatts," keeps on becoming an ever bigger and cheaper resource. The "low- hanging fruit" is mushing up around our ankles and spilling in over the tops of our waders while the innovation tree pelts our head with more fruit!

Slide 26 - A similar but even less visible revolution is happening in electricity supply: low- and no-carbon decentralized generators are eclipsing central thermal power stations. These graphs show the electricity produced and the capacity installed, both worldwide, for what The Economist magazine calls "micropower." Real data are on the left side of the vertical line, industry projections on the right. Micropower has two components: ・The tan wedge is combined-heat-and-power ("cogeneration")-making electricity together with useful heat. It's very effi cient and about two-thirds gas-fi red, so it saves over half the carbon emitted by the separate power plants and boilers or furnaces that it replaces. ・ The colored wedges are all the renewable sources of electricity except big hydroelectric dams (units over ten megawatts). Astonishingly, micropower now provides a sixth of the world's electricity-slightly more than nuclear power-and a third of the world's additions of electricity. Micropower in 2005 provided from one-sixth to more than half of all electricity in 13 industrial countries. These graphs don't show "negawatts," which are probably about as big, so together, micropower and

68 negawatts now provide the majority of the world's new electrical services. Because they're mass-produced, quickly built and installed, and bought by millions of dispersed market actors, they're more like cellphones than like cathedrals, so they can grow very quickly. For example, in 2005 (the last full data available), micropower added four times the output and 11 times the capacity that nuclear power added worldwide (both net of retirements). Moreover, even though it gets smaller subsidies and faces bigger obstacles than its traditional competitors, micropower won investments of more than $100 billion of private risk capital-$56 billion just for the distributed renewables-while nuclear got none (it's bought only in centrally planned power systems). The simplest explanation for micropower's marketplace victory over central thermal stations is that its lower costs and fi nancial risks make it more attractive to investors.

Slide 27 - Let's test that hypothesis by examining the best empirical U.S. data on what it costs to make and deliver (or to save) a new kWh of electricity at the retail meter. We'll examine both remote resources, which incur a delivery cost to reach the customer, and onsite resources, which are already delivered. Your actual costs may vary, but I've done the analysis in a way that favors central stations. For those I used the canonical 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study, whose costs included whatever subsidies central stations then got, but not the reserve margin needed to back up those big plants when they fail. The MIT study found that a new nuclear kWh would cost 7.0¢ to make (2004), so adding a deliberately low, decade-old average delivery cost for U.S. investor-owned utilities would bring the delivered cost to nearly 10¢. The MIT study said that huge new subsidies might, if everything went well, cut that cost by nearly 3¢, though a 2007 industry consensus group found the base-case cost has since risen by up to 3¢. Meanwhile, the MIT study found that a coal plant would cost slightly less than best-case nuclear power might achieve, though coal plants too have lately become costlier. Yet a big ($100/tonne) carbon tax could make the coal plant look nearly as costly as the nuclear base case, and similarly for combined-cycle gas- fi red plants. So policymakers keep juggling taxes and subsidies to try to get the market to choose what they want. But meanwhile the market is shifting away from all central power stations. For example, let's assume that windpower costs slightly more than the median for the past eight years' U.S. installations. Let's include its delivery cost too, of course, and add more than the actual cost of "fi rming" the windpower so it's fully dispatchable whether the wind is blowing or not. Even if we took away its Production Tax Credit, smaller than the subsidies to coal and nuclear, windpower would still beat their cost. But they're becoming costlier while wind turbines' cost trends downward, and indeed the cheapest windfarms already cost less than the industry projection for fi ve years from now. Generally cheaper still is cogeneration-whether it's the normal industrial kind, or "trigeneration" of electricity, heating, and cooling in a building, or cogeneration from recovered industrial waste heat. Cheapest of all is end-use effi ciency, which typically costs 1¢/kWh or less for industrial and commercial retrofi ts, up to a few ¢/kWh if you're not as skillful or also retrofi t houses, and if you're very skillful in new installations or even for many retrofi ts, less than zero.

69 Comparing all these ways to save or make electricity, we can see why investors are losing their old enthusiasm for central stations: they simply cost too much. But the cheaper alternatives also offer better climate solutions. For example, based on the MIT numbers, you can make and deliver one new nuclear kWh for just ten U.S. cents. That nuclear kWh can displace one kWh of coal-fi red electricity, helping to protect the climate. But if you'd spent the same money on distributed renewables, cogeneration, or effi ciency instead, you'd displace two to ten times as much coal-fi red electricity, and you'd do so faster. If climate is a problem, we must invest judiciously, not indiscriminately, to get the most solution per ¥ and the most solution per year. Buying anything costlier and slower will only reduce and retard the climate solution we need.

Of course, there's always a risk that any energy investment will be failure, like a "dry hole" when drilling for oil. So what can we learn from actual market behavior? An encouraging example comes from California during 1982-1985, when all ways to make or save electricity could compete on a fairly level playing-fi eld. During those four years, California's utilities bought or were fi rmly offered electrical savings and new decentralized supply (mainly renewables) totaling 143% of their total peak demand! The bidding had to be stopped, because in another year the power glut would have forced the shutdown of all the fossil-fueled and nuclear plants (which in hindsight might not have been such a bad idea). Thus letting everything compete will probably yield too many attractive options, not too few̶all the more so with today's far more powerful and cost-effective technologies. Those alternatives are also extremely large. For example, the U.S. potential for electric effi ciency is 2-3 or 4 times nuclear power's output, but costs less than just running a coal or nuclear plant, even if building it costs nothing. Cogeneration can profi tably provide a fi fth of U.S. electricity from industry, still more from buildings. On-and nearshore windpower has a practical potential in the U.S. and in China that's over twice total electricity use; in Britain, six times; worldwide, using newer data at 80 meters hub height, about 35 times just from windy areas. Other renewables are even larger. And contrary to a widespread misconception, windpower and solar power don't need impractical amounts of land nor big investments in electricity storage. Diverse, dispersed, but variable solar power and windpower that are forecast and integrated into the grid will actually need less storage or backup than utilities have already installed to cope with the intermittence of their big thermal plants.

Slide 28 - Meanwhile, a wide range of renewable sources is getting inexorably cheaper, and many are also likely to show discontinuous, "leapfrog" technological progress like the red examples I've added to these U.S. Government projections. And decentralized resources' economic advantage increases by typically about another tenfold when their 207 "distributed benefi ts," mainly from fi nancial economics and electrical engineering, are properly counted (www.smallisprofi table.org).

Even seemingly costly renewable energy also becomes often cost-effective today when properly integrated with effi cient use. For example, a California prison installed 1.2 hectares of photovoltaics on its roof. But fi rst making the roof white (to reject solar heat) and the jail's

70 lights, fans, and air conditioners more effi cient reduced demand, so on the hot afternoons when the solar cells produce the most electricity, the jail has the most surplus to sell back to the grid at the best price. Thus this $9-million project, of which the state reimbursed $5 million through subsidies, would have been very profi table even without them, because over 25 years, it yielded $15 million of benefi ts. The same logic becomes even stronger with distributed generators cheaper than photovoltaics, and at the scale of a house. My own household, using an average of about 120 watts, is entirely powered by 3m2 of photovoltaics, which-installed with inverter and batteries-cost slightly less than connecting to the utility wires 30m away, even if the saved electricity were worth zero. Today's state-of-the-art technology could reduce my home's usage to only about 40 watts, powered by 1m2 of photovoltaics, which would cost less than connecting to wires that were already on the side of my house and fi lled with free electricity. That is, an extremely effi cient house can reduce to zero the breakeven distance beyond which it's cheaper to use solar power than to connect to the grid.

Thus effi cient use, micropower, and substitutes for oil are all revolutionizing the way we get the services now provided by electricity and by oil. These profound market shifts are good for both climate and security. They profi tably protect the Earth's climate, far faster and more effectively than other methods. Smarter choices can also free up huge energy investments to help fi nance other development needs. For example, building a compact fl uorescent lamp factory in Mumbai or a superwindow coating factory in Bangkok needs roughly a thousand times less capital, repaid ten times faster, than supplying more electricity from central plants to run ineffi cient lamps and air conditioners to provide the same light and comfort. This ~10,000-fold reduction in the capital needed by the power sector, which now gobbles about one-fourth of global development capital, offers unique macroeconomic leverage for global development. These innovations can also make energy no longer a source of confl ict, corruption, and autocracy, but rather a powerful path to peace, transparency, and democracy. It can make today's brittle energy systems resilient, so major failures now inevitable by design (and easily caused by malice) become impossible by design. And taking seriously the verdict of the global marketplace can stop the main cause of the spread of nuclear bombs to such countries as Iran and North Korea. As I explained in Foreign Affairs magazine in summer 1980, civilian nuclear power makes widely available, in innocent-looking civilian disguise, the materials, equipment, knowledge, and skills for do-it-yourself bomb kits. But without today's big nuclear commerce, obtaining those ingredients would be harder, more conspicuous, and more politically costly, because the intention would unambiguously be to make bombs, not electricity. This unmasking would not make proliferation impossible, but would make it far more diffi cult and likely to be noticed in time, because intelligence resources could be concentrated on needles, not haystacks. Both our countries' leadership right now is vital to global security. If the United States claims that despite all its wealth, technological prowess, and fuel resources, it needs nuclear power, it invites all countries lacking those advantages to draw the same conclusion. Conversely, if Japan, already the world leader in solar power and in some forms of energy effi ciency, shows that despite having no fuels, its further effi ciency potential and renewables could power its advanced industrial economy, then no other country could claim it cannot do likewise. Indeed,

71 by offering wide access for developing countries to the same inherently nonviolent technologies we'd be adopting for ourselves, the U.S. and Japan could even return to the original purpose of Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty-access to affordable energy for development. Our two nations, intertwined by fate in the only uses so far of these horrible weapons, could now join by choice to expose and penalize their proliferators. This would greatly lessen the risk that they will once again be used, while also helping fair global development and protecting the climate. In short, using energy in a way that saves money can eliminate the supposed need to choose between dying by climate change, by oil wars, or by nuclear holocaust. All those choices are unnecessary and uneconomic.

So let me summarize how I see Japan's energy achievements and opportunities. Japan's industrial effi ciency ranges from #1 in the world to more ordinary; even the best sectors and fi rms can make considerable further improvements. Japan's energy use in households and transport has more than doubled since 1970, including a doubling for trucks and more than a 6-fold increase for passenger cars. All the cars and trucks on the road have average effi ciencies far below the best export models, so at least doubled effi ciency is quickly and cheaply available. The biggest opportunities are in the rather ineffi cient stock of buildings, which need both mass retrofi ts and stronger efforts toward full adoption of highly integrated supereffi cient equipment and design. Japan is pioneering some excellent policy instruments, like "Top Runner," but it would be helpful to emphasize price less than ability to respond to price, via comprehensive barrier-busting. The most important reform would be to reward distributors of electricity and gas for cutting your bill, not for selling you more energy. And in a country obviously poor in fuels but astonishingly rich in renewable energy potential, the biggest barrier to fully exercising Japan's extraordinary opportunity for energy leadership is simply not realizing that the opportunities for effi ciency and renewables are as large as they really are: more than large enough to power the whole country, more securely and more cheaply than present arrangements.

So what are we waiting for? We are the people we have been waiting for. And Japan is the leader the world is waiting for. If anything I have said seems too good to be true, please remember Marshall McLuhan's remark that "Only puny secrets need protection. Great discoveries are protected by public incredulity." It's your move.

Thank you for your kind attention.

72 Slide 1 U.S. energy/GDP already cut 48%, to very nearly the 1976 "soft path".

Slide 2 U.S./Japan energy: different prices; other similarities are more important than differences.

Slide 3 2007 McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) Potential for Abating Global Greenhouse Gases (Technically Very Conservative)

73 Slide 4 Two "Different but Likely" Japanese Societies in 2050

Slide 5 NIES 2050 Japan Energy Scenarios

Slide 6 The climate problem is caused by one percentage point.

74 Slide 7 So could the vision of contraction & convergence be feasible and profi table?

Slide 8 An All-too-common Belief

Slide 9 Per Capita Electricity Consumption

CA NY US TX Japan

75 Slide 10 U.S. cars & light trucks were long the least effi cient, but Japan's have become similar.

Slide 11 – 44 to + 46˚C with No Heating/Cooling Equipment, Less Construction Cost

Slide 12 Old Design Mentality: always diminishing returns…

76 Slide 13 New Design Mentality: Expanding Returns, "tunneling through the cost barrier" 1

Slide 14 New Design Mentality: Expanding Returns, "tunneling through the cost barrier" 2

Slide 15 Compounding losses…or savings…so start saving at the downstream end to multiply the fuel and equipment savings upstream

77 Slide 16 It's often remarkably simple.

Slide 17 High-effi ciency Pumping / Piping Retrofi t

Slide 18 A Profi table U.S. Transition beyond Oil

78 Slide 19 Each day, a typical car uses ～ 100 its weight in ancient plants. Where does that fuel energy go?

Slide 20 Three Technology Paths: Aluminum, Light Steels, Carbon Composites (the Strongest & Lightest)

Slide 21 The Oil Industry's Conventional Wisdom: Approximate Long-run Supply Curve for World Crude Oil and Substitute Fossil-fuel Supplies

79 Slide 22 How that supply curve stretches ～ 3 Tbbl if the U.S. potential shown in Winning the Oil End- game scales, very approximately, to the world

Slide 23 Stretching oil supply curve ～ 3 Tbbl averts >1 trillion tonnes of carbon emissions

Slide 24 Effi ciency is a rapidly moving target.

80 Slide 25 1989 Supply Curve for Saveable US Electricity (vs. 1986 Frozen Effi ciency)

Slide 26 Electric shock: low-/no-carbon decentralized sources are eclipsing central stations.

Slide 27 Central Power Stations' Fatal Competitors

81 Slide 28 Renewable Energy Cost Trends

82 Major Publications Dr. Amory B. Lovins

Energy Policy (General) Energy: Some Constraints and Opportunities, Ambio 3(3/4):123–125 (Jan 1974), www.jstor.org/pss/4312064 World Energy Strategies: Facts, Issues, and Options, May–Jun 1974 Bull. atom. Scient. serialization available in Google Books; World Energy Strategies-Reply, id., 30:2–3 (1974); Ballinger/FOE (Cambridge/SF), 1975 (nominated for National Book Award), Harper & Row (NY), 1979, ≥1 translation. Energy strategy, letter, Nature 247:332 (8 Feb 1974). Energy for fertilizer (reply letter), Bull. atom. Scient. 31:2–3 (May 1975). Nitrogen fi xation, letter, Nature 255:8 (1 May 1975), www.nature.com/nature/journal/v255/n5503/pdf/255008c0.pdf. Exploring Energy-Effi cient Futures for Canada, Conserver Society Notes 1(4), May/Jun 1976, Science Council of Canada (Ottawa). Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?, For. Aff. 55(1):65–96 (1976), RMI Publ. #E77-01, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken, and letters, For. Aff. 55(3):636 (1977), 55(4):891 (1977). Energy: The ‘Soft Path’, letter, Science 196:1384–1385 (24 Jun 1977). Lovins on ‘Lovins’ Fever,’ letter, Science 197:1133 (16 Sep 1977). Soft Energy Paths, letter, Power Engineering 81:142 (1977). Scale, Centralization and Electrifi cation in Energy Systems, at pp. 88–171 in Future Strategies for Energy Development: A Question of Scale, 20–21 Oct 1976 symposium, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1977. Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace, Ballinger/FOE (Cambridge/SF), 1977, Pelican (UK), 1977, Harper & Row (NY), 1979, ≥5 translations. Ca. 35 responses to critiques of Foreign Affairs article supra, in U.S. Senate Select Committee on Small Business and Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs, Alternative Long-Range Energy Strategies, 2 vols., US GPO, 1977, and The Energy Controversy: Soft Path Questions and Answers, H. Nash, ed., FOE (SF), 1979. Cost-Risk-Benefi t Assessments in Energy Policy, Geo. Wash. Law Rev. 45(5):911–943 (1977). Soft energy paths, letter, Nature 271:107–108 (12 Jan 1978). Soft Energy Technologies, Ann. Rev. En. 3:477–517 (1978), www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.eg.03.110178.002401. Soft Energy Path, Center Magazine 11:32–45 (1978). Lovins on Energy Costs, letter, Science 201:1077–1078å (22 Sep 1978). Re-Examining the Nature of the ECE Energy Problem, En. Pol. 7:178–198 (1979). Energy: Bechtel Cost Data, letter, Science 204:124–130 (13 Apr 1979). Energy Demand Forecasts, letter, Science 210:480 (31 Oct 1980). Exchanges with A.M. Weinberg, The Sciences [NY Acad. of Scis.] 21, October 1979, and 12, February 1980, and Wharton Magazine 68, Winter 1980. Energy: What’s the Problem?, Ecologist 11(6):302–313 (1981), with L.H. Lovins. Expansio ad Absurdum, En. J. 2(4):25 (1981). The Electricity Industry, letter, Science 229:914–916 (6 Sep 1985). Study Guide for 16mm Bullfrog fi lm Lovins on the Soft Path, 1985, RMI Publ. #E85-27. Comments on Dept. of the Interior DEIS (ANWR Coastal Plain Resource Assessment), 22 Jan 1987, RMI Publ. #S87-2. Impending Energy Crisis?, letter, Science 236:764 (15 May 1987), RMI Publ. #E87-10. Response to API Critique on ANWR Oil and Gas Leasing, 16 Apr 1988, RMI Publ. #S88-5. Oil-Risk Insurance: Choosing the Best Buy, GAO J., Jun 1988, U.S. Genl. Acctg. Offi ce, RMI Publ. #S88-26. Energy, People, and Industrialization, 1989, in K. Davis & M.S. Bernstam, eds., Resources, Environment, and Population/Pop. Devel. Rev. 16s, Population Council (NY), 1991, RMI Publ. #E89-1. Energy Options, letter, Science, 243:12 (6 Jan 1989), RMI Publ. #E89-2. Abating Air-Pollution at Negative Cost via Energy Effi ciency, J. Air & Waste Mgt. Assn. (JACPA) 39:1432–1435 (1989), RMI Publ. #E89-33 (original ver. 27 Oct 1987, #E89-13).

83 Making Markets in Resource Effi ciency, in E.U. v. Weizsäcker Festschrift, 25 Jun 1989, RMI Publ. #E89-27. End-Use/Least-Cost Investment Strategies, World En. Conf. #2.3.1, pp. 329–344, Montréal, 1989, RMI Publ. #E89-35 (Summary #E89-35A). Abating Air Pollution at Negative Cost, Env. Profl . 12:164 (1990), RMI Publ. #E89-33. Meeting the Challenges of the 1990s, U.S. General Accounting Offi ce, GAO/RED-91-66, pp. 38–56, Mar 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-13. Drill Rigs and Battleships Are the Answer! (But What Was the Question?), Ch. 7 of The Oil Market in the 1980’s: Challenges for a New Era (Reed & Fesharaki, eds., Westview, Boulder CO), 1991, RMI Publ. #S91-5 (formerly #S88-6), www.rmi.org/images/other/Security/S91-15_DrillRigsBattleships.pdf. Feebates, widely circulated memorandum, 6 Jul 1991, RMI Publ. #T91-21. Viewpoints exchange with Dr. Chauncey Starr, Coal Voice, pp. 10–15, May/Jun 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-31. Presentation in Meeting the Energy Challenges of the 1990s, GAO/RCED-91-66, USGAO (Washington DC), 1991. Feebates, widely circulated memorandum, 6 July 1991, RMI Publ. #T91-21. Fueling a Competitive Economy, with J.J. Romm (sr. au.), For. Aff. 72(5):46–60 (Winter 1992/3), RMI Publ. #S93- 1, www.foreignaffairs.org/19921201faessay5902/joseph-j-romm-amory-b-lovins/fueling-a-competitive-economy. html; response id. 72:213–214 (1993). Test. to Intl. Hrg. on Final Disposal of Nucl. Waste (Niedersächs. Umweltministerium, Hannover), 23 Sept. 1993. Is Oil Running Out?, Science 282:48–49 (2 Oct 1998), RMI Publ. #E98-5, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E98-05_ IsOilRunningOut , summarized in Solar Today, p. 50, July/Aug. 1999. Fueling the 21st Century: The New Economy of Energy, with C. Lotspeich, J. Intl. Affairs 53(1):191–208, Fall 1999, RMI Publ. #E99-16, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E99-16_EnergySuprises21stCentury [sic]. An Eight-Fold Way Towards Faster Energy Effi ciency, Procs. Summer Study Eur. Council for an Energy-Effi cient Economy (Mandelieu, France), 12 Jun 2001, RMI Publ. #E01-07, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-07_ EightFoldWayEnergyEffi ciency. Natural capitalism: new frontiers for chemical engineering, with L.H. Lovins, The Chem. Engr. 716:36–38 (2001) (Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, UK). Energy Surprises for the 21st Century, with C. Lotspeich, J. Intl. Affairs 53(1):215–232 (Fall 1999). Exchanges with Mark Mills about electricity use by Internet, www.rmi.org/images/other/E-MMABLInternet.pdf. Profi ting from a Nuclear-Free Third Millennium, Power Ecs., 2000, www.rmi.org/images/other/E-Profi tNukeFree.pdf. Fool’s Gold in Alaska (originally titled The Alaskan Threat to National Energy Security), with L.H. Lovins, For. Aff. 80(4):72–85 (Jul/Aug 2001),www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-03_FoolsGoldAlaska (as-published version RMI Publ. #E01-03, annotated version #E01-4); update, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-04_FoolsGoldAlaskaAnnotated; Fuzzy Math, response to Feb 2002 letter from Prof. Platt, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E02-11_FuzzyMath. Expert Group Report (convenor), National Energy Policy Initiative, Feb 2002, www.nepinitiative.org/expertreport.html, RMI Publ. #E02-4. Accelerating Renewables: Expanding the Policy and Marketing Toolkit, keynote, American Renewable Energy Council, Jul 2002, RMI Publ. #E02-07,www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E02-07_AcceleratingRenewables. Strength Through Exhaustion, or Design for Resilience? A Guest Column-Homeland Energy Security, Pipeline & Gas Journal 8(230):14–15, 1 Aug 2003, www.oildompublishing.com/pgj/pgjarchive/aug03/hub.pdf. Winning the Oil Endgame: Innovation for Profi ts, Jobs, and Security, with K.E. Datta, O.-E. Bustnes, J.G. Koomey, & N.J. Glasgow, forewords by George Shultz and Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, 329 pp., Sep 2004, www.oilendgame.com. Follow-up to Oral Testimony to USHR Commerce Committee to Examine the Rise of Domestic Energy Prices, 2005,www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2005-10_OralTestimonyFollowUp. Getting Off Oil: Recent Leaps and Next Steps, RMI Solns. J., spring 2008, RMI Publ. #E08-2, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-02_GettingOffOilRecentLeaps. Preface to the Chinese Edition of Winning the Oil Endgame (Shí yóu bó yì jie3 kùn shi1 dào, Tsinghua U. Press, RMI Publ. #E08-3, 2008/9), in English at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-03_ChineseWTOEPreface. Bioconversion: What’s the right size?, brief to National Research Council Panel on Alternative Liquid Transportation Fuels, with J.J. Newcomb, 20 Feb 2008. Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era (with Rocky Mountain Institute colleagues), Chelsea Green (Vermont), in press, Oct 2011.

84 Energy Effi ciency (Specifi c) Foreword to K. Butti & J. Perlin, A Golden Thread: 2500 Years of Solar Architecture and Technology, Van Nostrand Reinhold (NY), 1979. University Budget Cuts, Science 220:666 (1983), with L.H. Lovins. Technical testimonies, many book-length, to public utility commissions of CO, DC (twice), IL, MA, ME, NH, NM, NV (twice), TX, and WI, and to the U.S. Congress. Scoping Calculation of Electrical Savings in a Pulp-and-Paper Mill, 1985 testimony to Maine Land Use Regulatory Commission, RMI Publ. #E85-4. Public summary of analysis of advanced household appliances, 14 Apr 1985, RMI Publ. #E85-12. The State of the Art: Lighting, with R. Sardinsky, RMI/COMPETITEK, 1988 } [Dr. Lovins wrote The State of the Art: Drivepower, 1st of 6 authors, RMI/COMPETITEK, 1989 } all of these books, The State of the Art: Appliances, 2nd of 5 authors, RMI/COMPETITEK, 1990 } but as a courtesy, The State of the Art: Water Heating, 3rd of 4 authors, RMI/COMPETITEK,1991 } listed some co-re- The State of the Art: Space Cooling and Air Handling, 3rd of 6 aus., RMI/COMPETITEK, 1992 } searchers fi rst] Financing Electric End-Use Effi ciency, with M. Shepard, RMI/COMPETITEK, 1988. Energy Savings Resulting from the Adoption of More Effi cient Appliances, En. J. 9(2):155–162 (1988), RMI Publ. #E88-12. Customer Behavior and Information Programs, with M. Shepard, RMI/COMPETITEK, 1989. The ‘Negawatt’ Revolution: New Technologies for Electric Effi ciency, Site Selection 35(6):1387–1393 (1990). (Industrial Development Research Council), RMI Publ. #E91-2. If it’s not effi cient, it’s not beautiful, Fine Homebuilding, Spring 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-10, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E91-10_NotEffi cientNotBeautiful. Energy Conservation, letter, Science 251:1296–1298 (15 Mar 1991), RMI Publ. #E91-9. Energy Savings, letter, Science 252:763 (10 May 1991). Letter on feebates, 6 Jul 1991, RMI Publ. #T91-21. Antarctic Energy Effi ciency, Science letter submitted 24 Dec 1991, RMI Publ. #E92-6. Effi cient Offi ce Technologies, The Outlook and Market, EPRI conference Energy Effi cient Offi ce TechnologiesEnergy Effi cient Offi ce Technologies (San Jose), 17 Jun 1992, RMI Publ. #E94-14. Viewpoint (debate with Dr. Chauncey Starr), Coal Voice, National Coal Association, May/June 1991. Air Conditioning Comfort: Cultural and Behavioral Aspects, E SOURCE, Boulder CO, SIP-1, 1992. Energy-Effi cient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities, E SOURCE, Boulder CO, SIP-2, 1992. Switched Reluctance Motors Poised for Rapid Growth, with W. Howe, E SOURCE, TU-92-4, Nov 1992. Address to Energy Effi cient Offi ce Technologies, Policy Res. Assocs./EPRI, San Jose, 17 June 1992. Negawatts for Buildings, with W.D. Browning, Urban Land 51(7):26–29, Jul 1992, RMI Publ. #D92-22, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/D92-22_NegawattsForBuildings. Vaulting the Barriers to Green Architecture, with W.D. Browning (sr. au.), Arch. Rec., p. 16, Dec 1992, uncut text in RMI Publ. #D93-6. Inexpensive Ways to Save Electricity, letter, Technol. Rev. 96:7 (1993). What an Energy-Effi cient Computer Can Do, RMI Publ. #E93-20, 10 Aug / 10 Oct 1993, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E93-20_EnergyEffi cientComputer. The Cost of Energy Effi ciency, letter, Science 261:969–970 (20 Aug 1993). The Super-Effi cient Passive Building Frontier, summ. ASHRAE Centenary Address, ASHRAE J. 37(6):79–81, Jun 1995, RMI Publ. #E95-28, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E95-28_SuperEffi cientPassiveBuilding. Better buildings by design: overcoming barriers to effi ciency, Strat. Plng. En. Envt. 14:45–50 (1995). Energy effi ciency, letter, Technol. Rev. 98:8–9 (1995). East Meets West: Holistic Design for Sustainable Buildings, Forword to Japan Inst. of Architects, Sustainable Design Guide, vol. 2, 1996 (bilingual edn. is RMI #D96-3; corrected English edition also available from RMI), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/D96-03_JapaneseArchitectsDesignGuide. Foreword to G. Franta, K. Anstead, & G.D. Ander, Glazing Design: Handbook for Energy Effi ciency, AIA, 1997. Negawatts for Fabs, Stanford/NSF/SRC/SEMATECH tech. sympos. keynote, 6 Aug 1998, RMI Publ. #E98-3, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E98-03_NegawattsForFabs. On the rebound, letter, New Scientist 160(2155):52, 10 Oct 1998. Foreword to U.S. Navy Facilities Engineering Command, Sustainable Planning: A Multi-Service Assessment 1999. Letter to Forbes about its erroneous report on Internet electricity use, 27 Jun 1999, RMI Publ. #E99-17.

85 Exchange between Mark Mills and Amory Lovins about the electricity used by the Internet, 14 Sep 1999, RMI Publ. #E99-18. Response to Andrew Rudin, Publ. Utils. Fortnightly, 1 May 2003, RMI Publ. #E03-10. Rocky Mountain Institute Visitors’ Guide, 2004, RMI Publ. #H04-03, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/NC07-12; virtual tour at www.rmi.org/rmi/Amory%27s+Private+Residence; some Aug 2009 video and discussion is at online. wsj.com/article/SB124959929532112633.html#articleTabs%3Dinteractive (but see lower part of p 4 of posted comments, correcting some fundamental errors in the reportage). Energy Effi ciency: A Taxonomic Overview, Encycl. of Energy 2:383–401, Elsevier, March 2004 (also on its Editorial Advisory Board), RMI Publ. #E04-02, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E04-02_EnergyEffi ciencyTaxono micOverview. Energy End-Use Effi ciency, white paper commissioned by S. Chu for study Transitions to Sustainable Energy Systems, InterAcademy Council (Amsterdam, a consortium of ~90 national academies of science), 19 Sep 2005, RMI Publ. #E05-16, www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-16_EnergyEndUseEff.pdf. Energy Myth Nine-Energy Effi ciency Improvements Have Already Reached Their Potential, pp. 239–263 in B.K. Sovacool & M.A. Brown, eds., Energy and American Society-Thirteen Myths, Springer, 2007. Reply to Charles Komanoff, Grist, 18CK Dec 2010, www.grist.org/article/2010-12-15-if-effi ciency-hasnt-cut- energy-use-then-what/N20/#comments.

Integrative Design Wanted: Masters of elegant frugality, with I. Sheikh, Chem. Eng. Progr. 102:60–61, Sep. 2006, and letter, Do engineers optimize properly? Reply, Chem. Eng. Progr. 103:6 (2007) (AIChE). Save More, Pay Less, with I. Sheikh, tce (The Chemical Engineer) (UK), pp. 24–25, Sep 2007, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2007-13_SaveMorePayLess. Advanced Energy Effi ciency, fi ve public lectures at Stanford Engineering School, spring 2007, www.rmi.org/rmi/Stanford+Energy+Lectures (also available in Chinese). Integrative Design: A Disruptive Source of Expanding Returns to Investments in Energy Effi ciency, 2010, RMI Publ. #X10-09, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-09_IntegrativeDesign. Factor Ten Engineering Design Principles, 2010, RMI Publ. #X10-10, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010- 10_10xEPrinciples. Amory Lovins’s Integrative Design, interview, pp. 298–310 in W. Berger, Imagine Design Create, Autodesk (San Francisco), in press, 2011. Foreword to A. McGregor, F. Cousins, & C. Roberts, Challene 450: Sustainability and the Built Environment, Taylor & Francis, in press, 2012.

Ultralight Hybrid Vehicles Advanced Light Vehicle Concepts, briefi ng notes for U.S. National Research Council, 9 Jul / 3 Aug 1991, RMI Publ. #T91-20. Supercars: The Coming Light-Vehicle Revolution, with J.W. Barnett & L.H. Lovins, Procs. Summer Study Eur. Council for an Energy-Effi cient Economy (Rungstedgård, Denmark), 1–5 Jun 1993, RMI Publ. #T93-30. ‘Zero Emission’ Vehicles Aren’t, El. J. 6(5):2–3, Jun 1993, RMI Publ. #U93-17. Supercars: The Next Industrial Revolution, with J.W. Barnett & L.H. Lovins, RMI Publ. #T93-16, 11 August 1993, revised and retitled Hypercars:…, 11 August 1993, revised 26 February 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-19. Policy Implications of Supercars, with J.W. Barnett & L.H. Lovins, RMI Publ. #T93-21, August 1993. Why Battery Electric Cars Are Inferior to Hybrids, letter to Solar Mind & EV News, 12 Feb 1994, RMI Publ. #T94- 13. Advanced Ultralight Hybrids: Necessity and Practicality of a Leapfrog, Vice President’s Automotive Technology Symposium #3, Structural Challenges for the Next Generation Vehicle, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 22–23 Feb 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-18. Vehicle Design Strategies to Meet and Exceed PNGV Goals, with T.C. Moore (sr. au.), SAE951906, Society of Automotive Engineers (Warrenton PA), 4 Aug 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-27, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T95-27_ VehicleDesignStrategies. Moving Toward a New System, in Building the E-motive Industry, Society of Automotive Engineers R-148 (Warrenton PA), 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-33, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T95-33_MovingTowardNewSystem. Hypercars: The Next Industrial Revolution, pp. 77–96, 1993 Asilomar Conference, Transportation and Energy:

86 Strategies for a Sustainable Transpn. System, Amer. Counc. for an Energy-Efft. Economy (Washington D.C.), 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-30, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T95-35_CostingUltraliteVolumeProduction. Hypercars: The Next Industrial Revolution, p. 77, Transportation and Energy: Strategies for a Sustainable Transportation System, ACEEE (Washington D.C.), 1995. Moving Toward a New System, p. 30, in Building the E-motive Industry, SAE R-148, 1995. Supercars: Advanced Ultralight Hybrid Vehicles, in Encyc. En. Technol. & Envt., 1st edn., Wiley-Interscience, 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-34. Costing the Ultralite in Volume Production: Can Advanced Composite Bodies-in-White Be Affordable?, with sr. coaus. A.E. Mascarin, J.R. Dieffenbach, M.M. Brylawski, & D.R. Cramer, Procs. 1995 Intl. Body Eng. Conf. & Expos. (Detroit), 31 Oct–2 Nov 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-35. Ultralight weight hybrids-the coming revolution, El. & Hybrid Veh. Technol. 1995, p. 43, RMI Publ. #T95-38. Ultralight-Hybrid Vehicle Design: Overcoming the Barriers to Using Advanced Composites in the Automotive Industry, with M.M. Brylawski (sr. au.), Procs. 41st Ann. Soc. Adv. Mater. & Process Eng. (SAMPE) Sympos. & Exhib. (Anaheim), 25–28 Mar 1996, RMI Publ. #T95-39, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T95-39_UltralightHVDesignBarriers. Hypercars: Materials, Manufacturing, and Policy Implications, RMI Publ. T95-17, and 2nd edn., T96-7, with M.M. Brylawski, D.R. Cramer, & T.C. Moore, 2 vols., 559 pp., RMI Publ. #T95-17 (front matter #T96-7); reviewed by R. Cumberford, By Design, Automobile, 11(7/8), Oct./Nov. 1996, RMI Publ. #T96-13. Hypercars: The Next Industrial Revolution, Procs. 13th El. Veh. Sympos. (EVS-13) (Osaka), 14 Oct 1996, RMI Publ. #T96-9, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T96-09_HypercarNextRevolution. Speeding the Transition: Designing a Fuel-Cell Hypercar, with B.D. Williams & T.C. Moore (sr. aus.), Procs. 8th Ann. U.S. Hydrogen Mtg. Natl. Hydr. Assn. (Arlington VA), 11–13 Mar 1997, RMI Publ. #T97-9, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T97-09_DesigningFuelCellHypercar. Auto Bodies Lighten Up, letter with M.M. Brylawski & D.R. Cramer, Technol. Rev., 100:7–9, May/Jun 1997, RMI Publ. #T97-10. Letter responding to A Practical Road to Lightweight Cars, Technol. Rev., pp. 7–8, May/June 1997. Advanced Composites: The Car Is At the Crossroads, w/ M.M. Brylawski (sr. au.), Procs. 43rd Ann. Soc. Adv. Mater. & Process Eng. Sympos. & Exhib. (SAMPE) (Anaheim), 31 May–4 Jun 1998, SAMPE J. 35(2):25–36 (1999), RMI Publ. #T98-1, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T98-01_CarAtCrossroads. Hypercar has repairs all fi xed up, letter, The Engineer 288:8–9 (1999) (London). FreedomCar, Hypercar®, and Hydrogen, lead industry-panel testimony to USHR Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, 26 Jun 2002, RMI Publ. #T02-6, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T02-06_ FreedomCARHyperCarHydrogen. Hypercars®, hydrogen, and the automotive transition (with D.R. Cramer), Intl. J. Veh. Design 35(1/2):50–85, 2004, RMI Publ. #T04-01, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T04-01_HypercarsHydrogenAutomotiveTransition. Reforming the Automobile Fuel Economy Standards Program, 26 Apr 2004 comments to NHTSA rulemaking, RMI Publ. #T04-10, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T04-06_CommentAmericanSocietyHydrogenReport. Reinventing the Wheels, Envtl. Health Persps. 113:A218-A219 (2005). Comments to NHTSA on Revised Light-Truck CAFE Standards, 22 Nov 2005, RMI Publ. #T05-13, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T05-13_LetterNHTSA. Transformational Trucks: Determining the Energy Effi ciency limits of a Class-8 Tractor-Trailer, with sr. coaus. M. Ogburn and L. Ramroth, 2008, RMI Publ. #T08-08, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T08-08_TransformationalTruc ksEnergyEffi ciency. Ultralight Vehicles: Non-Linear Correlations Between Weight and Safety, with sr. coau. K. Chan-Lizardo and coaus. L. Schewel and M. Simpson, Intl. Crashworthiness Conf., Washington D.C. 22–24 Sep 2010. Reinventing the Wheels, Ch. 18 in A. Parr & M. Zaretsky, eds., New Directions in Sustainable Design, pp. 207–218 (with author’s update note on p. 218), Routledge (London), 2011.

Hydrogen Economy (See also Ultralight Hybrid Vehicles) A Strategy for the Hydrogen Transition, with B.D. Williams, Procs. 10th Ann. U.S. Hydrogen Mtg. Natl. Hydr. Assn., 8 Apr 1999, RMI Publ. #T99-7, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T99-07_StrategyHydrogenTransition. Fuel cells for cars, Sci. Amer. letter, p. 8, Nov 1999. Hypercars, Hydrogen, and Distributed Utilities: Disruptive Technologies and Gas-Industry Strategy, Amer. Gas Assn. Ops. & Mktg. Conf. (Denver), 9 May 2000, RMI Publ. #E00-25. Hypercars: Uncompromised Vehicles, Disruptive Technologies, and the Rapid Transition to Hydrogen, CWC

87 Associates conference Redefi ning the Global Automotive Industry: Technologies and Fuels for the Future (Washington D.C.), 16 Jun 2000, RMI Publ. #T00-26, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T00- 26_HypercarsUncompromisedVehicles. Twenty Hydrogen Myths, Jul 2003, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E03-05_TwentyHydrogenMyths, widely linked, accepted by Intl. J. Hydrog. En. when updated, RMI Publ. #E03-05. Hydrogen: The Future of Energy, Given Inst. Lecture, Aspen, RMIQ, 6 Aug 2003, RMI Publ. #E03-09. Hydrogen Economy: Not So Diffi cult-Without Nuclear Power, Aug 2003, RMI Publ. #E03-06. Is Hydrogen Hazardous? Two Views, letter, APS News 9(8) (Aug/Sep 2000), Am. Phys. Soc. www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200008/letters.cfm. Assessing the Future Hydrogen Economy, letter, Science 302:226–227 (10 Oct 2003), RMI Publ. #E03-1; further exchange (posted in Science online) included in RMI Publ. #E03-02, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E03-02_ ScienceLetterTrompRebuttal. Comment on the American Physical Society Hydrogen Report, Physics & Society, Jul 2004, RMI Publ. #T04-06, www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2004/july/commentary.html.

Electric Utility Policy and Economics (omitting ~10 other utility-commission testimonies) Electric Utility Investments: Excelsior or Confetti?, J. Bus. Admin. 12(2):91–114 (Vancouver, 1981). Electric Utilities: Key to Capitalizing the Energy Transition, Technol. Forec. & Soc. Change 22(2):153–166 (Oct 1982), correction 23:211 (1983). Renewable Energy, letter, IEEE Spectrum 19:8, 12 (1982). Testimony to USHR Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 8 Feb 1984, on Long-Term Demand for Electricity, RMI Publ. #U84-21. Testimony to USHR Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 26 Jun 1984, on HR5766, Regional Conservation and Electric Power and Regulatory Coordination Act of 1984, RMI Publ. #U84-22. Least-Cost, Reliable Electrical Services as an Alternative to Seabrook, testimony to New Hampshire PUC, Docket #84-200, 15 Oct 1984, RMI Publ. #U84-19. Least-Cost Alternatives to the Malakoff Lignite Plant, testimony to PUC of Texas for City of Houston, Docket #5779, 7 Dec 1984, RMI Publ. #U84-20. Rebuttal Testimony to DC PSC for Offi ce of the People’s Counsel, 12 Aug 1985, RMI Publ. #U85-28. Least-Cost Electricity Strategies for Wisconsin: Practical Opportunities to Save Over a Billion Dollars a Year, 1985 testimony to Wisconsin PSC, Exh. 33, Docket #05-EP-4. Least-Cost Electrical Services as an Alternative to the Braidwood Project, testimony to Illinois Commerce Commission, Dockets #82-0855 and 83-0045, Jul 1985, RMI Publ. #U85-9. Testimony to PUC of Nevada (Nevada Power Docket #84-724), RMI Publ. #U85-19. Should Utilities Promote Energy Conservation?, El. Potential 86(2):3 (1986), RMI Publ. #U86-7. Review of OLE transmission Proposal for New Mexico, 18 Jan 1986, RMI Publ. #U86-3. Negawatts-Rx for Megagoofs, Public Power, pp. 10–16, Mar–Apr 1986, RMI Publ. #U86-5. Testimony to MA DPU on behalf of Mass. Exec. Offi ce of Energy Resources, 9 Jun 1986, RMI Publ. #U86-16. Testimony to PSC of Nevada for OCA (Sierra Pacifi c Docket #86-701), RMI Publ. #U86-18. Testimony on behalf of DC PSC in PEPCO Rate Case (#834 Phase II), 19 Feb 1987, RMI Publ. #U87-6. Advanced Electricity-Saving Technologies and the South Texas Project, 2 vols., report to City of Austin Electric Utility Department, Dec 1986, RMI Publ. #U87-7. Letter to Scientifi c American on photovoltaics, responding to Y. Hamakawa, 24 Mar 1987, RMI Publ. #S87-9. Electricity-Saving Potential of New Orleans Public Service Inc., 7 May 1987, RMI Publ. #U87-15. Excerpts from an unsolicited letter to a utility CEO, RMI Publ. #U87-29. Negawatts for Arkansas, report to Gov. Clinton and Arkansas Energy Offi ce, 3 vols., 1988, RMI Publ. #U88-41. Open Letters Challenge Harvard’s Bidding Proposal, El. J. 2(2):34–40 (Mar 1989), RMI Publ. #U89-15. Four Revolutions in Electric Effi ciency, Contemp. Pol. Iss. (now Contemp. Ec. Pol.) [Western Ec. Assn. Intl.] 8:122–141 (1990), RMI Publ. #E90-28, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1990.tb00649.x/ abstract. Report to the Minister for Industry and Economic Planning, Victoria, Australia, 30 Nov 1990, RMI Publ. #U91-5. The Negawatt Revolution: Electric Effi ciency and Asian Development, with A. Gadgil, 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-23, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E91-23_NegawattRevolutionElectricEffi ciencyAsianDevelopment.

88 Testimony to Calif. PUC en banc Hearing, San Francisco, 17 Jan 1993, RMI Publ. #U93-8. Renewables in Integrated Energy Systems, with D. Yoon, ANZ Solar En. Soc. (Perth), 3 Dec. 1993. Clarifying Electrotechnologies, letter, El. J. 7(1):3–4 (Feb. 1994), RMI Publ. #U94-10. Renewables in Integrated Energy Systems, with D. Yoon, ANZ Solar Energy Society Solar ’93 Conference (Perth, Western Australia), 2 Dec 1993, RMI Publ. #E94-12. Apples, Oranges, and Horned Toads: Is the Joskow & Marron Critique of Electric Effi ciency Valid?, El. J. 7(4):29– 49, May 1994, RMI Publ. #U94-16. Negawatts: Is There Life After the CPUC Order?, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners keynote (Kalispell MT), 16 May 1994, RMI Publ. #U94-17. Letter testimony to California PUC re R.94-04-031 and I.94-04-032, 22 May 1994, RMI Publ. #U94-18. Negawatts: Is There Life After the CPUC Order?, keyn. Natl. Assn. Reg. Util. Cmrs. (Kalispell), 16 May 1994. Testimony to California PUC in Blue Book proceedings, 22 May and 17 Aug. 1994, RMI Publ. #U94-18. Spotlight on Direct Access Interview, DR Connection, pp. 2–3, Nov 1994, El. Pwr. Res. Inst. (Palo Alto), RMI Publ. #U94-34. Energy effi ciency, invited commentary, Technol. Rev., p. 8, Aug/Sep 1995, RMI Publ. #U95-24. Letter of comment to FERC re transmission Mega-NOPR, RMI Publ. #U95-37, 24 Jul 1995, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/U95-37_CommentFERC. Submission to FERC Mega-NOPR proceeding, 24 July 1995, RMI Publ. #U95-37. Negawatts: Twelve Transitions, Eight Improvements, and One Distraction, En. Pol. 24(4):331–343, Apr 1996 (edn. without typographic errors is RMI Publ. #U96-11), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/U96- 11_NegawattsTwelveTransitions. Foreword to E. Smeloff & P. Asmus, Reinventing Electric Utilities: Competition, Citizen Action, and Clean Power, Island Press, 1996. Putting Central Power Stations Out of Business, Aspen Energy Forum, 7 July 1998, RMI Publ. #E98-2. Putting Central Power Plants Out of Business, Aspen Institute Energy Forum, 7 July 1998. RMI Publ. #E98-2. California Electricity: Facts, Myths, and National Lessons, 22 Jul 2001 Worldwatch address (Aspen), RMI Publ. #U Effi cient Use of Electricity, with A.P. Fickett & C.W. Gellings (sr. aus.; ABL wrote ~70%), Sci. Amer. 263(3):64–74 (Sep 1990), 01-2, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/U01-02_CaliforniaElectricityFactsMyths. Small Is Profi table: The Hidden Economic Benefi ts of Distributed Generation (and Other Distributed Resources), Australian EcoGeneration Conf. (Sydney), 13 Mar 2002, RMI Publ. #U01-13, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/U01- 13_SmallIsProfi table. Small Is Profi table: The Hidden Economic Benefi ts of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size, w/coauthors, Rocky Mountain Institute, Aug 2002, 423 pp., www.smallisprofi table.org; one of The Economist’s top three business/economics books of 2002; Japanese edition from Japan Energy Conservation Center (Tokyo 2005). Keeping the Lights on While Transforming Electric Utilities, with L. Hansen (sr. au.), RMI Solns. J. 3(1): (Winter 2010), RMI Publ. #E10-4, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-04_keepingthelightson. 2010 Micropower Database, with B. Cohen, May and Aug 2010 (updated from 2008 edn.), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-14_MicropowerDatabaseSeptember2010. Renewables, Micropower, and the Transforming Electricity Landscape, with B. Cohen (sr. au.), RMI Solns. J. 3(2), (Spring), June 2010, www.rmi.org/rmi/RenewablesMicropowerTransformingElectricityLandscape. Renewable Energy’s ‘Footprint’ Myth, El. J. 24(6):40–47, July 2011, doi:10.1016/j.tej.2011.06.005.

Nuclear Power and Health Physics The Case Against the Fast Breeder Reactor, Bull. atom. Scient. 29:29–35 (Mar 1973). Nuclear power: technical bases for ethical concern, 1974 (evidence to Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution), 1975 (2nd edn.), Friends of the Earth Ltd for Earth Resources Ltd (London). Non-Nuclear Futures: The Case for an Ethical Energy Strategy, with J.H. Price, Ballinger/FOE (Cambridge/SF), 1975, Harper & Row (NY), 1979. Nuclear energy, Am. Scient. 63:4 (1975). Plutonium particles: some like them hot, with W.C. Patterson, Nature 254:278 (1975). www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1975-01_PlutoniumParticles. Plutonium and other actinides, book review, Nature 265:390 (1977), www.nature.com/nature/journal/v265/n5592/pdf/265390b0.pdf. Out of the frying-pan into the PWR, Nature 271:2 (5 Jan 1978), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1978-01_FryingPanPWR

89 or www.nature.com/nature/journal/v271/n5640/pdf/271002a0.pdf. Comments on the 10/78 Draft IRG Report to the President (TID-28817 draft), memo to the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management, 1978. Fission not the method, Bull. atom. Scient. 34:62–63 (Nov 1978). Is Nuclear Power Necessary?, Energy Paper No. 3, Friends of the Earth (London), 1979. The Origins of the Nuclear Power Fiasco, En. Pol. Studies [U. of Delaware] 3:7 (1986), RMI Publ. #E86-29, www. rmi.org/rmi/Library/1986-01_OriginsNuclearPowerFiasco. Chernobyl, Issues in Sci. & Technol. 3:10–11 (Winter 1987), National Academies, RMI Publ. #E86-30. Nuclear power-for or against?, Pwr. Ecs. 3(9)19–20, Nov 1999. Profi ting from a Nuclear-Free Third Millennium, Pwr. Ecs., 2000, RMI Publ. #E00-19, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E00-19_Profi tingNuclearFreeMillenium Profi ting from a Nuclear-Free Third Millennium, Power Ecs., 2000, www.rmi.org/images/other/E-Profi tNukeFree.pdf Profi ting from a Nuclear- Free Third Millennium, Power Ecs., 2000, www.rmi.org/images/other/E-Profi tNukeFree.pdf. Why Nuclear Power’s Failure in the Marketplace Is Irreversible (Fortunately for Nonproliferation and Climate Protection), keynote, 9 Apr 2001 symposium, Nuclear Control Institute, RMI Publ. #S01-1, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S01-01_NuclearPowerFailureIrreversible, www.nci.org/conf/lovins/lovins- transcript.htm, www.nci.org/conference.htm, www.nci.org/conf/lovins/index.htm, reprinted in Phys. & Soc. 30(4):8–11 (2001), Am. Phys. Soc. Testimony to International Hearing on Final Disposal of Nuclear Waste (Braunschweig, FRG), 23 Sep 1993, RMI Publ. #E94-11. Comment to Nuclear News on MIT study The Future of Nuclear Power, 10 Nov 2004, RMI Publ. #E04-22. Mighty Mice, Nucl. Eng. Intl., pp. 44–48, 21 Dec 2005, RMI Publ. #E05-15, www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2033302 or www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E05-15_MightyMice; the former URL links to an early-2006 exchange with Ian Hore-Lacy (reposted Apr 2010) at www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2056395 and www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2056396. Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role in Climate Change Mitigation, Committee Workshop, Calif. En. Comm. Integrated Energy Policy Report 2005, 16 Aug 2005, RMI Publ. #E05-9. Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate-Protection Potential, RMI Publ. #E05-14, 6 Jan 2006, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E05-14_NuclearPowerEconomicsClimateProtection. Nuclear Power: Competitive Economics and Climate-Protection Potential, Royal Acad. Eng. lecture (London), 13 May 2006, RMI Publ. #E06-04, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E06-04_NuclearPowerCompetitiveEconomics. Nuclear Power and Climate Change, exchanges with Prof. S. Berry and P. Bradford, 2007, RMI Publ. #C07-09, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C07-09_NuclearPowerClimateChange. Forget Nuclear, with I. Sheikh and A. Markevich, RMI Solutions, Apr 2008, RMI Publ. #E08-4, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-04_ForgetNuclear. Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?, RMI Solns. J. 2(1) (Apr 2008), RMI Publ. #E09-1, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly. ‘New’ Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story, RMI Solns. J. 3(1):28–31 (Spring 2009), RMI Publ. #E09-7, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-07_NuclearSameOldStory. Four Nuclear Myths (expanding arguments in popular publication Nuclear Nonsense below), RMI Publ. #E09-9, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths. The Nuclear Illusion, Ambio (accepted and in production for 2011); preprint of an early draft, RMI Publ. #E08-1, meanwhile posted by permission at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion. Nijyuu-isseiki no Soft Energy Path, Gaiko 8:65–73 (Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 2011); unabridged English text posted July 2011 as U.S. Energy Policy After Fukushima at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-09_ GaikoSoftEnergyPaths.

90 National Security And Nuclear Proliferation (unclassifi ed only) Nuclear power-energy consumer, letter, Envt. 17:44 (1975). Convergence, letter, Bull. atom. Scient. 34:4 (May 1978). Thorium Cycles and Proliferation, Bull. atom. Scient. 35(2):16–22 (1979), http://books.google.com/books?id=GgsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&dq=Lovins&hl=en&ei=FASxTO6pJoPB nAf95tWDCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Lovi ns&f=false, and correspondence, id. 35(5):50 (1979), 35(9):57 (1979). Nuclear Weapons and Power-Reactor Plutonium, review article, Nature 283:817–823 (28 Feb 1980), RMI Publ. #S80-1, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S80-01_NuclearWeaponsPowerReactorPlutonium and typographic correction, 284:190 (13 Mar 1980), www.nature.com/nature/journal/v284/n5752/full/284190b0.html. Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bombs, with L.H. Lovins & L. Ross, For. Aff. 58:1137–1177 (Summer 1980), RMI Publ. #S80-2, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S80-02_NuclearPowerNuclearBombs, and 59:172 (1980). Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link, with L.H. Lovins, FOE (SF), 1980, Harper & Row (NY), 1981 (≥2 translations). Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security, with L.H. Lovins, DOD/CEQ/Brick House (Andover MA), 1982, reposted 2001, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S82-03_BrittlePowerEnergyStrategy (≥1 translation), originally produced as Energy policies for resilience and national security: Final report to the Council on Environmental Quality, Exectuive Offi ce of the President, Washington DC, 1981; RMI 2001 edition in OCR .PDF format (with new preface at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2001-21_BrittlePowerPreface) scanned from out-of-print 1982 Brick House edition, 499 pp. Reducing Vulnerability: The Energy Jugular, in R.J. Woolsey, ed., Nuclear Arms, Inst. for Contemp. Studies (San Francisco), 1983, RMI Publ. #S84-23, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S84-23_ReducingVulnerabilityEnergyJugular. ‘The connection is tenuous,’ Bull. atom. Scient. 39:62–63 (May 1983), with L.H. Lovins. Building a secure society, Ecologist 14:141–145 (1984), with L.H. Lovins. Iraq’s nuclear intentions, letter, Bull. atom. Scient. 42:55–56 (Oct 1986). Cold fusion confusion, letter, Bull. atom. Scient. 45:46–47 (Jun 1989), RMI Publ. #S89-20. National Energy Strategy Undercuts War Aims, 20 Feb 1991 RMI/NRDC press-conference statement, RMI Publ. #E91-11. Lessons from Iraq, letter to Bull. atom. Scient., 9 Aug 1991, RMI Publ. #S92-5. Plutonium Disposition, letter, Phys. & Soc. 23(4):2 (1994), Am. Phys. Soc., RMI Publ. #S94-26, www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/1994/october/loct94.html. Negawatts and Hypercars: How the Resource Effi ciency Revolution Will Transform the Navy, Briefi ng to Resource Requirements Review Committee, USN/USMC (Pentagon), 8 Jun 1995, RMI Publ. #S95-25. Foreword to U.S. Navy Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Sustainable Planning: A Multi-Service Assessment 1999. More Capable Warfi ghting Through Reduced Fuel Burden (coau. of panel report), Defense Science Board Task Force report to U.S. Department of Defense, May 2001, www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA392666.pdf. Energy Effi ciency Survey Aboard USS Princeton CG-59, with C. Lotspeich, 30 Jun 2001 report to Offi ce of Naval Research, grant #N00014-01-1-0252, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S01-09_EnergyEffi ciencyUSSPrinceton (abstract RMI Publ. #S01-10), summarized in All Energy Experts on Deck!, RMI Solutions, Fall/Winter 2001, www.rmi.org/Content/Files/RMI_SolutionsJournal_FallWint01.pdf. Critical Issues in Domestic Energy Vulnerability, Alliance to Save Energy Summit, 25 Oct 2001, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S01-25_CriticalIssuesDomesticEnergySecurity, and Aspen Clean Energy Roundtable, 8 Oct 2001, RMI Publ. #S01-6. How Innovative Technologies, Business Strategies, and Policies Can Dramatically Enhance Energy Security and Prosperity, invited testimony to U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 7 Mar 2006, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E06-02_SenateEnergyTestimony. Surprises and Resilience, RMI Solns. 23:1–3 (Spring 2006), www.rmi.org/Content/Files/RMI_SolutionsJournal_Spring06.pdf. More Fight-Less Fuel (coau. of panel report), Defense Science Board Task Force report to U.S. Department of Defense, Feb 2008, www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf. Foreword to S. Cooke, In Mortal Hands, Bloomsbury USA (NY), 2009. DoD’s Energy Challenge as Strategic Opportunity, Joint Force Quarterly 57:33–42 (Feb 2010), RMI Publ. #S10-

91 5,www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-57/lovins.pdf ; unabridged version, RMI Publ. #S10-7, at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-05–DODsEnergyChallenge. Interview on DoD’s potential applications of nuclear power, posted to DoD Energy Blog by Andy Bochman at http://dodenergy.blogspot.com/2010/04/lovins-addresses-new-nuclear-power-for.html (26 Apr 2010), http://dodenergy.blogspot.com/2010/05/lovins-addresses-new-nuclear-power-for.html (3 May 2010), and http://dodenergy.blogspot.com/2010/05/lovins-addresses-new-nuclear-power-for_12.html (12 May 2010). Proliferation, Oil, and Climate: Solving for Pattern (Jan. 2010 unabridged version of following paper), RMI Publ. #S10-2, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-02_ProliferationOilClimatePattern. On Proliferation, Oil, and Climate: Solving for Pattern, Foreign Policy online, 21 Jan. 2010, RMI Publ. #S10-3, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-03_ForeignPolicyProliferationOilClimatePattern. Rare Earth Elements, letter to Joint Force Quarterly, 31 Oct 2010, posted 4 Nov 2010 at www.ndu.edu/press/lovins.html. Response to Robert G. James’s Of Mustard Fuel and Marines, Wall St. J. online, 3 Aug 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704529204576257130958288522.html?KEYWORDS= mustard+marines#articleTabs%3Dcomments and http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge- Center/Library/2011-10_ResponseToRobertJames. Spotlight interview, Currents (U.S. Navy), Spring 2012, in press.

Climate Change Thermal Limits to World Energy Use, widely circulated typescript, 1968–73 versions, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1973-01_ThermalLimitsWorldEnergy. Economically Effi cient Energy Futures, in W. Bach et al., eds., Interactions of Energy & Climate, Reidel (Dordrecht), 1980.

Least-Cost Energy: Solving the CO2 Problem, w/L.H. Lovins, F. Krause, & W. Bach, Brick House 1982, RMI 1989 (fi rst published for German Federal Environmental Agency as Energy Strategy for Low Climatic Risks, Jun

1981 and as Wirtschaftlichster Energieeinsatz: Lösung des CO2-Problems (C.F. Müller, Karlsruhe), 1983. Energy, Economics, and Climate, with L.H. Lovins, Clim. Change 4(3):217–220 (1982), 5:105 (1983), RMI Publ. #E82-2. Commentary, with L.H. Lovins, Carbon Dioxide Review: 1982, W.C. Clark, ed., pp. 367–370. Profi tably Abating Global Warming, Japanese-American Conference on Global Warming (Atlanta), 3–4 Jun 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-16. The Role of Energy Effi ciency, in J. Leggett, ed., Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report, Oxford U. Press, 1990. Profi tably Abating Global Warming, paper for MITI/Georgia Tech. conference, 3-4 June 1991. Abating Global Warming for Fun and Profi t, in Takeuchi & Yoshino, eds., The Global Environment, Springer, 1991. Least-Cost Climatic Stabilization, with L.H. Lovins, Ann. Rev. En. Envt. 16:433–531 (1991), RMI Publ. #E91-33, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E91-33_LeastCostClimaticStabilization, discussed in Science 251:154 (1991). Profi tably Stabilizing Global Climate-An Editorial, with L.H. Lovins, Clim. Ch. 22(2):89–94 (1992), RMI Publ. #E92-7. The Negawatt Revolution: Abating Global Warming for Fun and Profi t, with L.H. Lovins, in Environmental Strategy America, Campden Publ., 1994, RMI Publ. #E94-21 The Negawatt Revolution: Abating Global Warming for Fun and Profi t, with L.H. Lovins, in Environmental Strategy America, Campden Publ., 1994. Climate: Making Sense and Making Money, with L.H. Lovins, RMI Publ. #C97-13, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C97-13_ClimateSenseMoney, November 1997. Climate: Making Sense and Making Money, keynote, NGOs’ Res. Conf. Sustainability/Vision 21: Energy Policies

and CO2 Reduction Technologies, Kyôto, 6 Dec. 1997, RMI Publ. #E97-15, www.rmi.org/catalog/climate.htm, ≥1 translation. Climate change, Issues in Sci. & Technol. 14:9–10 (1998), Forum, National Academies, www.issues.org/14.4/forum.htm. More Profi t with Less Carbon, Sci. Amer. 293(III):74–82, Sep 2005, RMI Publ. #E05-05, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C05-05_MoreProfi tLessCarbon; an extended basic bibliography is provided at www.rmi.org/images/other/Climate/C05-05a_MoreProfi tBib.pdf. What Can We Do?, Bull. atom. Scient. 63:47–48 (2007), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C07-07_WhatCanWeDo What Can We Do to Fix the Climate Problem?, unabridged version of previous paper, 2007, RMI Publ. #E06-6, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C06-10_FixClimateProblem.

92 Profi table climate solutions: correcting the sign error, Energy & Envtl. Sci. 2:15–18 (2009), http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b814525n. Profi table Solutions to Climate, Oil, and Proliferation, 15 Jun 2009, 9th Royal Colloquium Climate Action: Tuning in on energy, water and food security, Bönhamn (Sweden), Ambio 39(3):236–248 (2010), RMI Publ. #C10-18, www.springerlink.com/content/0u401176160q6196/ or www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010- 18_Profi tableSolutionsClimateOil.

Biotechnology, Forests, Other Environmental Issues Long-Term Constraints on Human Activity, IFIAS/UNEP study, Env. Conserv. [Genève] 3(01):3–14 (1976), Cambridge U. Press, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1976-02_ConstraintsOnHumanActivity. Resource Effi ciency in Wood Fiber Services: A ‘Soft Fiber Path’ for Forest Product Markets, with one sr. (Jason Clay) & two jr. coaus., Systems Group on Forests (convenor) topical paper, RMI, 1997. Saving Forests from the Demand Side, Forest Visions and Transitions Workshop, World Resources Institute (Washington DC), 28 Jun 1999, RMI Publ. #F99-14, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/F99-14_SavingForests. Redesigning Evolution, letter, Science 285:1489–1491 (3 Sep 1999); unabridged version at RMI Publ. #B00-21, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/B00-21_RedesigningEvolution (see popular paper below, A Tale of Two Botanies, for the origin of this thread). Where Descartes Meets Darwin, New Perspectives Qly., Summer 2000, RMI Publ. #B01-8, www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2000_summer/descartes_darwin.html.

Health Health Care: Some Analogies, Lessons, and Ideas from Energy, slide document from co-keynote of Dec 2007 Institute for Healthcare Improvement annual meeting (Orlando), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/M07-01_ HealthCareAnalogiesLessons.

Experimental Physics 19 Splitting of F NMR Line in a Co2+-Doped NaF Crystal, J. Chem. Phys. 42(5):1558–1559 (1965). http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v42/i5/p1558_s1?isAuthorized=no; also presented to Am. Phys. Soc., Bull. APS 10:632 (1965).

U.S. PATENTS (Mr. Lovins develops through his charitable employer RMI and its spinoffs, open-sources, or otherwise gives away all his inventions, with these two exceptions:).

Method and Means for Observing Nuclear Magnetic Resonances, U.S. Pat. #3430128 (fi led 25 Mar 1965, issued 28 Feb 1969), www.freepatentsonline.com/3430128.html. Method and Means of Effi ciently Moving and Sorting Shipping Containers [Flowport], Provisional U.S. Pat. Appln. (fi led 4 Jan 2007). Popular Publications (excluding many RMI house-journal publications and external op-eds, interviews, blogs, and letters).

Environmental, Economic, and Land-use Policy; Business; Miscellaneous Eryri, the Mountains of Longing, D.R. Brower, ed., Friends of the Earth (SF) / McCall (NY) / Allen & Unwin (London), 1972 (text, layout, co-photographer; Exhibit Format). The Stockholm Conference: Only One Earth, Earth Island (London), 1972, 1 translation. Rock-Bottom: Nearing the Limits of Metal-Mining in Britain, Ecologist 23(5):5–19, May 1972, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1972-02_RockBottom or http://exacteditions.theecologist.org/exact/browse/307/308/6420/2/7/0/. Openpit Mining, Earth Island (London), 1973 (used for a few years as an intro. text at Royal School of Mines). At Home in the Wild: New England’s White Mountains (co-photographer only), D.R. Brower, ed., Friends of the Earth (San Francisco) / Appalachian Mountain Club (Boston) / NY Graphic Society, 1978 (Exhibit Format). The Surprises Are Coming!, Christianity and Crisis 41(4):51, 16 Mar 1981. Let’s Tap Water Effi ciency Before Spending on Treatment, with R. Pinkham (sr. au.) and L.H. Lovins, Chr. Sci. Mon., 3 May 1994, www.csmonitor.com/1994/0503/03183.html. How Not to Parachute More Cats, July 1989 speech to Santa Barbara conference Toward a Postmodern Presidency,

93 with L.H. Lovins (sr. au.). Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use, with E.U. von Weizsäcker (sr. au.) & L.H. Lovins, Earthscan (London) and Allen & Unwin (Sydney), 1997 (fi rst published 1995 as Faktor Vier: Doppelter Wohlstand, halbierter Naturverbrauch by Droemer Knaur, München), ≥11 translations. How Not to Parachute More Cats, with L.H. Lovins, RMI Publ. #G96-1, 1996. Technology and lifestyles, interview, Resurgence 190:22–25 (Sep/Oct 1998). Ökoeffi zienz: Unbegrenzte Möglichkeiten, pp. 30–42, E.U. v. Weizsäcker & J.-D. Seiler-Hausmann, eds., Ökoeffi zienz, Birkhäuser, Berlin, 1999. A Road Map for Natural Capitalism (with L.H. Lovins & P. Hawken), Harv. Bus. Rev. 77(3):145–158, 211 (May/ Jun 1999), RMI Publ. #NC99-08, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/NC99-08_NatCapRoadmap; letters, id. Jul–Aug and 77:179, 1999; reprinted at pp. 1–34, Business and the Environment, Harvard Business School Press, 2000, and in HBR’s 2007 collection Going Green, Profi tably. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, with P. Hawken (sr. au.) & L.H. Lovins, Little Brown (NY) and Earthscan (London), 1999, 415 pp., www.natcap.org, ≥8 translations. Natural Capitalism column, WorldLink, World Economic Forum, Nov/Dec 1999, www.worldlink.co.uk/issues/ 181199171232.htm. Replacing Nature’s Wisdom with Human Cleverness (with L.H. Lovins), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1 Aug 1999, condensed from unabridged version A Tale of Two Botanies, RMI Publ. #B99-11, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/B99-11_TaleTwoBotanies; also reprinted in Wired 8.04, Apr 2000, www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/botanies.html. The greening of human settlements, Town & Country Planning (UK), 69(1):30–31, Jan 2000. Natural Capitalism, interview with Satish Kumar, Resurgence 198, Jan/Feb 2000, www.resurgence.org/magazine/article1806-natural-capitalism.html. Graduation Test for the Species-Commentary on Technology, Wash. Times, 13 Aug 2000, RMI Publ. #B00-31, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/B00-31_GraduationTestSpecies. Pathway to Sustainability, with L.H. Lovins (sr. au.), Forum for Applied Res. & Publ. Pol., winter 2000, http://forum.ra.utk.edu/Archives/PDF/15.4.pdf. Commentary on Bill Joy’s Wired article, abridged by L.A. Times (2000) and unabridged in New Perspectives Qly. 17(3) (Summer 2000), RMI Publ. #B01-08, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/B01-08_BillJoyWiredArticle or www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2000_summer/descartes_darwin.html; adapted in RMI Solutions 16(2):7–8 (Winter 2000), www.rmi.org/Content/Files/RMI_SolutionsJournal_FallWin00.pdf. Natural Capitalism: Path to Sustainability?, Corp. Envtl. Strat. 8(2):99–108 (2001), with L. H. Lovins (sr. au.). El Capitalismo Natural, 2001 short summary at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/NC01_29A_ElCapitalismNatural. Foreword to D.R. Brower, Let the Mountains Talk, Let the Rivers Run, New Society (Gabriola Island, BC), 2000 Capitalismo Natural, Apertura (Buenos Aires), Jun 2001, English original at www.rmi.org/images/other/Businesses/NC01-29_NatCapApertura.pdf. Interview on natural economy, Resurgence 213 (Jul/Aug 2002). Some Missing Elements of Sustainable Development, Digital Vision Fellows lecture, Stanford University, 31 Oct 2003, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S03-12_MissingElementsSustainableDevelopment. Foreword to The Natural Advantage of Nations, K. Hargrove & M.H. Smith, eds., pp. xix-xxii, Earthscan (London and Sterling VA), 2005. Abundance by Design, RMI Ann. Rpt. 2004–05, p. 2, www.rmi.org/Content/Files/AnnualReport04-05.pdf. Imagine a World, address to Rocky Mountain Institute’s 25th birthday celebration, RMI Publ. #R07-9, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2007-09_ImagineAWorldText. It’s Easy Being Green, interview, The American Interest 5(1):46–54 (Autumn 2009). Applied Hope, RMI Ann. Rpt. 2007–08, pp. 2–3, RMI Publ. #R08-19, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2008-19_ AppliedHope. Applied Hope, at pp. 165–168 in An Actual Man, J. Ogilvy, ed., Minuteman Press (Berkeley), 2010. Preface to B. Harwood, Awakening to Sustainability: The Power of Spirit, in production, 2011. The Essential Amory Lovins: Selected Writings, C.M. Burns, ed., in press, Earthscan (London), July 2011. Applied Hope, Natural Sciences Commencement address, 15 May 2011, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-06_UCBCommencement. Wonder in the Bewilderness, Harvard Magazine, Sep-Oct 2011, p. 84, http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/09/harvard-at-400.

94 Energy Policy (General) Electric Power for the People, letter, N.Y. Times, 4 Nov 1971. Clean Energy or a Choice of Poisons?, letter, N.Y. Times, 19 Jan 1972. Why Nuclear Safety Is Unattainable, letter, N.Y.Times, 8 Jun 1973. Is ‘Red Tape’ a Code Word for Law?, Wash. Post, 3 Aug 1979. N.Y. Times letters: 4 November 1971, 19 January 1972, 8 January 1973, 10 June 1974, 16 September 1977, 11 October 1977, 5 August 1980 (the last with L.H. Lovins). Thinking Soft, by A.J. Mayer, Newsweek, p. 108, 14 November 1977. Setting Business Straight on Energy Priorities, Bus. Wk. interview/staff feature, p. 112D, 5 December 1977; revisited in Conservation Power cover story, id., Amory Lovins’ Energy Ideas Don’t Seem So Dim Anymore, p. 92, 16 Sept. 1991. Plowboy Interview, Mother Earth News 17, November/December 1977. How to Finance the Energy Transition, Not Man Apart (FOE/SF), Sept./Oct. 1978. Soft Energy Paths, Resurgence 9(6):17 (1979). Mr. Lovins’s Thesis, letter, Wall St. J., 13 Aug 1979. Shortcuts to U.S. Energy Conservation, letter, N.Y. Times, 1 Jan 1980. Democracy and the Energy Mobilization Board, Not Man Apart 14, February 1980. Soft Energy Paths: How to Enjoy the Inevitable, The Great Ideas Today 1980, Encycl. Britannica suppl. The Unmasking of a ‘Turkey’ Called Nuclear Power, letter, N.Y. Times, 5 Aug 1980. Energy by the People, Energy for the People, Christianity and Crisis 40(4):51 (1980). Reagan’s Energy Policy: Conservative or Ultraliberal?, Wash. Post, 24 Nov 1980. Is Reagan a True Conservative on Energy?, L.A. Times, 12 January 1981. Position paper, National Geographic Energy Issue, p. 73, Feb 1981. The ‘Soft Path’ Solution for Hard-Pressed Utilities, Bus. Week interview, pp. 96L–96N, 23 Jul 1984, RMI Publ. #U84-15. Salvation for Seabrook?, letter, Barron’s, 29 Oct 1984, RMI Publ. #U84-27Lovins on the Soft Path, w/L.H. Lovins, 16mm, Envision/Bullfrog 1982, top prizes at Amer. etc. Film Festivals. Turning On to Renewable Energy, letter, Wall St. J., 13 Nov 1984, RMI Publ. #E84-8. Nuclear Heat or Solar Light?, letter to Wall St. J., 31 Dec 1984, RMI Publ. #E84-31. Nuclear Follies, letter to Forbes, 4 Feb 1985, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1985-01_ForbesLetterToEditor. Hiding the True Costs of Energy Sources, Wall St. J., p. 28, 17 Sep 1985, with H.R. Heede (sr. au.). Editorial with L.H. Lovins, Energy and Edn. (Natl. Assn. Sci. Teachers), p. 1, Apr 1986, RMI Publ. #E86-11. Nuclear Energy Is Not Economic or Necessary, with L.H. Lovins, Newsday, 24 Jun 1986, RMI Publ. #E86-15. The Irrelevance of Nuclear Power, with L.H. Lovins, op-ed for Den. Post, Jun 1986, RMI Publ. #E86-14. America’s Energy Oracle, by B. Lemley, mag. cover stories, Wash. Post, 29 June 1986, Chicago Trib., 3 Aug. 1986. Energy Update, In Context interview, p. 27, August 1986. Alternatives to Nuclear Power: Coming of Age, Devel. Forum, p. 4, Sep 1986, RMI Publ. #E87-5. Energy Update, interview, In Context, Autumn 1986, pp. 27–32, RMI Publ. #E86-27. Energy Unbound: A Fable for America’s Future, with L.H. Lovins (sr. au.) & S. Zuckerman, Sierra Club (San Francisco), 1986. Fun Energy Facts to Know and Tell at Cocktail Parties, with J. Klusmire, RMI Publ. 1987, #E87-13. Why a utility fi zzled out, letter, Bus. Wk., 7 Mar 1988. If everything else fails, we may behave wisely, High Country News 21(5), 3 pp., 13 Mar 1989, RMI Publ. #E89-20. Onassis Prize Acceptance Speech, 20 Apr 1989, RMI Publ. #E89-21. A Future Technology Whose Time Has Passed?, letter to Wall St. J., 17 Aug 1989, RMI Publ. #E89-32. Personal comments on draft EIS for four-laning [Colorado] Highway 82, 1 Oct 1989, RMI Publ. #E90-15. Abating Global Warming for Fun and Profi t, letter to Wall St. J., 16 Apr 1990, RMI Publ. #E90-9. Generating Heat in Carbondale, 4 Jan 1990, and Alternatives to Mid-Continent’s Coal-Fired Power Plant, 2 Jul 1990, letters to editors of local W. Colorado newspapers, with L. Hunter Lovins, RMI Publ. #E90-14. A Market-Based Energy Strategy, Greenwire interview, 1992, RMI Publ. #E92-4. Costly, Subsidized Energy Not Necessary, with D. Yoon (sr. au.), letter, Chr. Sci. Mon., 4 May 1993, RMI Publ. #93-13, www.csmonitor.com/1993/0504/04181.html. Letter to Forbes on electric cars, 1 Feb 1994, RMI Publ. #T94-22.

95 Preface to Energy effi ciency for a sustainable world, B. Laponche et al., Intl. Conseil Energie (Paris), 1997. The Organic Egghead, by M. McRae, Harrowsmith 3:37 (1986). Small Wonders: The Energy Effi ciency Revolution, by A. Carothers, Greenpeace 13:211 (1988). Searching for Oil in Windows, Doors and Lights, by M. Wald, N.Y. Times, 16 May 1988. Saving Energy to Save Ourselves: Amory Lovins, Calypso Log interview with M. Batten, p. 8, October 1989. Amory Lovins: Walking the Soft Path, by J.R. Udall, Sierra 75(1):128 (January/February 1990). Where Do We Go From Here?, by W.H. MacLeish, Smithsonian, p. 58, April 1990. High Priest of the Low-Flow Showerhead, by C. Brown, Outside, pp. 58-66 & 158-163, November 1991. Amory Lovins: Two Times a Hero?, by A. Kleiner, Pop. Sci., p. 76, July 1992. Energy Policy, with L.H. Lovins (sr. au.) & H.R. Heede, p. 671 in M. Green, ed., The Citizens Transition Project, Changing America: Blueprints for the New Administration. Carbon Reductions Can Make You Money, letter, Chr. Sci. Mon., 22 Dec 1997, www.csmonitor.com/1997/1222/122297.opin.letters.1.html. Nuclear Energy Debate: Nuclear Power Earns Fresh Look, Despite Past Woes (subtitled Need for nuclear is passé), with L.H. Lovins, USA Today, p. A12, 17 Apr 2001, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01- 15_NuclearEnergyDebate. California Dreaming, exchange with W. Tucker, The American Spectator, 15 May 2001, unabridged version as RMI Publ. #E01-17, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-17_CaliforniaDreaming. Tough Lovins, exchange with W. Tucker, The Weekly Standard, 4 Jun 2001, unabridged version as RMI Publ. #E01- 29, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-29_ToughLovins. The Nuclear Option Revisited, with L.H. Lovins, Los Angeles Times, 8 Jul 2001, RMI Publ. #E01-19, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-19_NuclearOptionRevisited. Electricity Solutions for California, Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, 11 Jul 2001, RMI Publ. #E01-20, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-20_ElectricitySolutionsCalifornia. California Electricity: Facts, Myths, and National Lessons, Worldwatch Inst. conf. (Aspen, CO), 22 Jul 2001, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/U01-02_CaliforniaElectricityFactsMyths. Re fueling, Economist, p. 6, 29 May 1999 [by that newspaper’s correspondent] Can nuclear power solve the energy crisis?, Insight, 27 Aug 2001, RMI Publ. #E01-05, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-05_NuclearPowerSolveEnergyCrisis. Put This in Your Pipeline and Smoke It-Domestic Oil and Gas is Not the Ticket to U.S. Energy Security, with L.H. Lovins, Grist, 20 Nov 2001, http://www.grist.org/article/in3. Mobilizing Energy Solutions, with L.H. Lovins, American Prospect, 28 Jan 2002, RMI Publ. #E02-01, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E02-01_MobilizingEnergySolutions. Energy Forever, with L.H. Lovins, American Prospect, 11 Feb 2002, RMI Publ. #E02-01a, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E02-01a_EnergyForever. Old Problems, New Solutions: Putting an End to Energy Crises, World Link, Jul/Aug 2002, World Economic Forum. We Can Take Politics Out of Energy Policy, with R.C. McFarlane (sr. au.), Dallas Morning News, 18 May 2003, RMI Publ. #S03-03, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S03-03_PoliticsOutEnergyPolicy. Leaving Appalachia Right Side Up…At a Profi t, Orion 25(1):66–67 (Jan/Feb 2006), www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/262/. Wise Up to Nuclear Folly, Green Futures (Forum for the Future, UK), 8 Mar 2006, www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/602479. Atomic Balm, letter, N.Y. Times Sunday Magazine, 20 Aug 2006, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E6D7173EF933A1575BC0A9609C8B63&scp=3&sq= %22Amory+B.+Lovins%22&st=nyt. Commemorative Lecture, Blue Planet Prize, 2007, www.af-info.or.jp/en/blueplanet/doc/list/2007lect-lovins.pdf. Does a big economy need big power plants?, New York Times Freakonomics guest blog, 9 Feb 2009, http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/does-a-big-economy-need-big-power-plants-a-guest-post, RMI Publ. #E09-06. Nuclear nonsense, Grist, 14 Oct 2009, RMI Publ. #E09-10, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-10_NuclearNonsense (see Four Nuclear Myths above for expanded technical version); adapted in Earth Island J. 25(4):49 & 51, Winter 2011, 1 Dec 2010. Climate: Eight Convenient Truths, Roll Call, 9 Nov 2009,

96 www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-12_ClimateEightConvenientTruths, slightly revised and republished in RMI Solns. J., Feb 2010, RMI Publ. #2009-12, www.rmi.org/rmi/Climate-+Eight+Convenient+Truths. Reinventing Fire: A New Vision and Reinventing Fire: The Strategy, RMI Solns. J. 2(3):6–14 (Fall 2009), www.rmi.org/rmi/Solutions+Journal+Fall+2009. Nuclear socialism, The Weekly Standard 16(6):15–16, 25 Oct 2010, RMI Publ. #E10-21, www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nuclear-socialism_508830.html or www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-21_NuclearSocialism. Response to William Tucker’s The Weekly Standard Goes Green (American Spectator, 26 Oct 2010, http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/26/whos-in-love-with-lovins/1), submitted 1 Nov 2010, unpublished, posted as a comment 14 Dec 2010 at http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/26/whos-in-love-with-lovins#comment_445884 and 15 Dec 2010 at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-25_ReplyToWilliamTucker. The effi ciency dilemma, letter, The New Yorker, p. 3, 17 Jan 2011 (reply to David Owen’s 20/27 Dec 2010 article The effi ciency dilemma), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-01_ReplyToNewYorker. Learning from Japan’s nuclear disaster, 17 Mar 2011, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-02_LearningFromJapan, reprinted in Grist, Huffi ngton Post, etc. Nuclear power invited essay, The Economist online debate, 11 Apr 2011, www.economist.com/debate/days/view/685. Foreword to M. Schneider, A. Froggatt, & S. Thomas, Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World: The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010–2011, Worldwatch Institute (Washington DC), Apr 2011, www.worldwatch.org/TK URL.

Energy Effi ciency The Plowboy Interview with Amory Lovins, Mother Earth News, 15 pp., Nov./Dec. 1977, www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/1977-11-01/Amory-Lovins.aspx. Living Better With Less Electricity, L.A. Times, 24 Dec 1981. The Soft Path Solution for Troubled Utilities, Business Week interview, 23 Jul 1984. To Save Energy, Oceans, Billions-and the Air We Breathe, L.A. Times, Opinion, p. 5, 30 Oct 1988, RMI Publ. #E88- 43. Power Utilities Violate Miss Piggy’s Fourth Law, L.A. Times, Opinion, p. 5, 11 Dec 1988, RMI Publ. #U88-48. Utilities Conserve to Compete, Best of Business Qly., Winter 1988, RMI Publ. #U88-49. Effi ciency, the Best Cure for Power Shortages, with M. Shepard, Alliances (Summer 1989), RMI Publ. #E89-40. Saving Energy to Save Ourselves, Calypso Log, pp. 8–10, 22 (Oct 1989), RMI Publ. #E89-43.

How a Compact Fluorescent Lamp Saves a Ton of CO2, 5 Feb 1990, RMI Publ. #E90-5. Effi cient Use of Electricity, with A.P. Fickett & C.W. Gellings (sr. aus.; ABL wrote ~70%), Sci. Amer. 263(3):64–74 (Sep 1990), RMI publ. #E90-19; reprinted at pp. 11–23 of Energy for Planet Earth, Scientifi c American, 1990. The Negawatt Revolution, Across the Board 27(9):21–22 (Sep 1990), The Conference Board, RMI Publ. #E90-20, www.thewindway.us/pdf/E90-20_NegawattRevolution.pdf. The Role of Energy Effi ciency, Ch. 10, pp. 193–222 & 505–511, in Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report, J. Leggett, ed., Oxford U. Press, 1990, RMI Publ. #E90-21. Energy Effi ciency for the Environment and the Economy, with P. Cantrell, Commentator, pp. 8–10, Nov/Dec 1990, RMI Publ. #E90-25. Energy Effi ciency in the West, Conservation Digest, Apr 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-17. A power of good, Far Eastern Econ. Rev., 1 Aug 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-34; full text is RMI Publ. #E91-23. Electricity Gluttons: More, Cheaper!, letter responding to Prof. Alfred Kahn, Wall St. J., 16 Sep 1991; published and unabridged versions in RMI Publ. #E91-36. Realistic Energy Savings?, letter with sr. author Joseph Romm, For. Aff. 72(1):213–214 (Jan 1993). The Cause of Power Shortages: Best Buys Last, Newsweek, 3 Feb 1994, RMI Publ. #U94-19. Keeping Warm and Staying Cool, Economically and Effi ciently, with sr. aus. D. Yoon and H.R. Heede and jr. au. L.H. Lovins, Garbage, pp. 54–57 (Spring 1994), RMI Publ. #E94-20. Spread the Costs of Electricity Fairly, Chr. Sci. Mon., p. 19, 28 Nov 1994, RMI Publ #U94-30, www.csmonitor.com/1994/1128/28192.html. Energy Effi ciency Pays, with L.H. Lovins, letter to N.Y. Times, 30 Nov 1994, RMI Publ. #E94-32. Homemade Money: How to save energy and dollars in your home, with H.R. Heede (sr. au.), O. Bailey, L.H.

97 Lovins, & W.D. Browning, RMI, Snowmass CO, 1995. The Next Energy Crisis, with L.H. Lovins, Pop. Sci., pp. 89–91, Sep 1996. Technology and Lifestyles, interview, Resurgence 190:22–25 (Sep/Oct 1998). Lovins: Smart Companies Aren’t Waiting Around for Climate Treaty Ratifi cation, Worldwatch, 12(1):7 (1999), RMI Publ. #E98-6. Pioneering Energy Effi ciency, interview, Tagesspiegel (in English: The Berlin Journal 14:48 (Spring 2007). Using energy more effi ciently, interview, McKinsey Quarterly, Jul 2008, www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Using_energy_more_effi ciently_An_interview_with_the_Rocky_Mountain_ Institutes_Amory_Lovins_2164. Greg Franta: An Appreciation, RMI Solns. J. 3(1):6–9 (Spring 2009), www.rmi.org/rmi/Greg+Franta,+An+Appreciation. Response to Jeffrey Ball’s Wall Street Journal article The Homely Costs of Energy Conservation. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124959929532112633.html#articleTabs%3Darticle, Aug 2009), RMI Publ. #2009-16, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-16_LovinsResponseToWSJ. Appreciation of Greg Franta FAIA in his posthumous Cooling the Warming, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2010.

Oil Policy Synfuels: Money Isn’t Enough, Denver Post, 24 Sep 1979. Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel?, Wall St. J., 1 May 1987. The Avoidable Oil Crisis, with L.H. Lovins, Atlantic, Dec 1987, RMI Publ. #S87-25, and letters with L.H. Lovins Apr and Jun 1988, RMI Publ. S87-11. How to Find U.S. Oil Reserves, letter, Wall St. J., 19 Apr 1988, RMI Publ. #S88-7. Effi ciency Can Halt Oil Rigs and Dams, letter, Rocky Mtn. News, 23 Jun 1988, RMI Publ. #S88-24. Energy and Security, interview, In Context 19:14–19 (1988), RMI Publ. #S88-34. CAFE Signals Gas-Mileage Effi ciency, Wall St. J., 26 Sep 1988, RMI Publ. #S88-37. Letter re Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Audubon, Sep 1988, RMI Publ. #S88-38. An Energy Security Reader, Oct 1988, 2nd edn., RMI Publ. #S88-45. The Energy Saboteurs Are In the White House, with L.H. Lovins, L.A. Times, 21 Jan 1991, RMI Publ. #S91-4. Interview with P. Shabecoff on National Energy Strategy, Greenwire 1(135):11–13, 1(136):12–13 (1991). Reinventing the Wheels, with L.H. Lovins, Atlantic, Jan 1995, pp. 75–86, RMI Publ. #T94-29, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T94-29_ReinventingTheWheels (two reprints shown in Technical section above), and Letters, Apr 1995, RMI Publ. #T94-29 and #S96-2. Get Great Cars on the Road, cover story, Amicus J. 21(3):24 (Fall 1999). Your oil or your wildlife, letter, Sci. Amer. 285:13 (Sep 2001). How America Can Free Itself of Oil-Profi tably, Fortune, 4 Oct 2004, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E04-21_AmericaProfi tablyFreeItselfOil. Ending Our Fatal Oil Dependence, The Ripon Forum 39(2)12–14, Mar/Apr 2005, RMI Publ. #E05-02, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E05-02_OilOurFatalDependence. How to Live without Oil, Newsweek Intl. guest article, 8 Aug 2005, www.energybulletin.net/node/7753. Getting Off Oil, guest essay in Economist special issue (end-of-Dec 2006) The World in 2007, reprinted in RMI Solns. 23(1):10–11 (Spring 2007), RMI Publ. #E06-8, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E06-08_GettingOffOil. Drilling in All the Wrong Places, RMI Solns. J. 2(2):4–5 (Fall/Winter 2008), RMI Publ. #E08-18, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2008-18_DrillingWrongPlaces. How to boost gas mileage and get better cars, with M. Gately & L. Schewel, Chr. Sci. Mon., 28 Jul 2009, www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0728/p09s01-coop.html. Freeing America from its Addiction to Oil, CNN interview, 2010, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-01_FreeingAmericaAddictionOil.

National Security Untangling the Nuclear Debate, Devel. Forum 4(2):5 (1976). Nuclear Spread: ‘The Cure Begins at Home,’ letter, N.Y. Times, 3 Feb 1976. Resilience in Energy Strategy, letter, N.Y. Times, 24 Jul 1977. Peddling Nuclear Power: An Explosive U.S. Policy, L.A. Times, 6 Dec 1981. Better Energy Security, with L.H. Lovins, Chr. Sci. Mon., 28 Feb 1982, www.csmonitor.com/1982/0628/062823.html.

98 Better energy security, Chr. Sci. Monitor, 28 June 1982. The First Nuclear World War, with P. O’Heffernan (sr. au.) & L.H. Lovins, Wm. Morrow (NY), 1983. The Fragility of Domestic Energy, with L.H. Lovins, Atlantic, Nov 1983, RMI publ. #S83-8, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S83-08_FragilityDomesticEnergy. Real Security, with L.H. Lovins, Daughters of the American Revolution Magazine, Mar 1983, RMI Publ. #S83-9. Resilient Power, with L.H. Lovins (sr. au.), Solar Age 8:A1–A8 (1983). Building a Secure Society, with L.H. Lovins, Ecologist 14(4):141–145 (1984). Make Fuel Effi ciency Our Gulf Strategy, with L.H. Lovins, N.Y. Times, 3 Dec 1990, RMI Publ. #S90-27 (annoted version #S90-28); revised edn. reprinted as Winning the Peace, Whole Earth Rev., pp. 60–62, Winter 1991, RMI Publ. #S92-3. Lessons from Iraq, letter to Bull. atom. Scient., 16 Jul / 9 Aug 1991, RMI Publ. #S92-5. Making Security Profi table, sermon, Cathedral of St. John the Divine (NY), 17 Jan 1993, RMI Publ. #S94-23. Nuclear power and proliferation, with L.H. Lovins, letter to Wall St. J., 21 Apr 1995, RMI Publ. #S95-20. Nonproliferation: Now a Workable Idea, with L.H. Lovins, Chr. Sci. Mon., p. 19, 27 Apr 1995, RMI Publ. #S95-21, www.csmonitor.com/1995/0427/27191.html. Making Security Profi table, sermon w/L.H. Lovins, Cathedral of St. John the Divine (NY), 17 Jan. 1993. Nuclear Energy Provides Bomb Kits, letter, Wall St. J., p. A17, 18 May 1995, RMI Publ. #S95-20. Russia’s Greener Future, with H. Cleveland (sr. au.), Moscow Times, 3 Sep 1998. The 800-mile-long Chapstick…and Other Tales of Domestic Energy Insecurity, TomPaine.com(mon sense), 30 Oct. 2001. Battling Fuel Waste in the Military, RMI, 2001, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S01-12_BattlingMilitaryFuelWaste. Energy Security: First, Do No Harm, with L.H. Lovins, op-ed for Wash. Post, 30 Sep 2001, RMI Publ. #S01-11. What Is Real Security?, with L.H. Lovins, YES!, Spring 2002, www.yesmagazine.org/issues/what-does-it-mean-to-be-an-american-now/493. Energy Security: It Takes More Than Drilling, with R.J. Woolsey (sr. au.) and L.H. Lovins, Chr. Sci. Mon., 29 Mar 2002, RMI Publ. #S02-05, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S02-05_EnergySecurityMoreThanDrilling. Military Transformation and the Roots of National Security, retitled How to Get Real Security, Whole Earth, Fall 2002, RMI Publ. #S02-08, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S02-08_MilitaryTransformationAndNationalSecurity. Real Security, Resurgence 218 (May/June 2003). Energy Security Factsheet, 2003, RMI Publ. #S03-04, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S03-04_USEnergySecurityFacts. Towering Design Flaws, The Globe and Mail (Toronto), 21 Aug 2003, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E03-06_ToweringDesignFlaws. Enlightening Blackouts, RMI Solns., Fall/Winter 2003, www.rmi.org/Content/Files/RMI_SolutionsJournal_FallWint03.pdf. Gas Pains, letter, Atlantic 296(1):20, Aug 2005, RMI Publ. #S05-06, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S05-06_GasPains. It’s All About Effi ciency, N.Y. Times, 30 Jul 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/opinion/nyregionopinions/30CIlovins.html.

99